Preamble

The House met at Half-past
Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Married Quarters

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War how many married quarters for officers and other ranks, respectively, have been completed since 1st April, 1948; how many such buildings have been started; and how many it is expected will be completed before 31st March, 1949.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Six permanent married quarters have been built for officers and 304 for other ranks since 1st April, 1948. Eighty-four for officers and 648 for other ranks have been let to contract or are under construction. It is expected that of these, 14 for officers and 60 for other ranks will be finished before 31st March. In addition an appreciable number of quarters, most of which may be used either by officers or by other ranks, has been and is being provided by conversion of hutting and other existing buildings; figures of these for the periods referred to in the Question are not readily available.

Mr. Low: In view of the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for War, during the Debate on the Army Estimates in March of last year, stated that 600 would be completed before the end of this year, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress; and what steps is he taking to increase building?

Mr. Shinwell: I am certainly not satisfied with the progress. We have a long way to go before we can be satisfied. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary certainly did make an observation of the kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman,

but I have looked at the progress, and I find that by the end of the financial year we shall have completed 538, that is 62 less than the target which was promised. All I can say is that we shall do everything possible, subject to the provision of materials and labour—there is no difficulty about the financial provisions—to increase the accommodation.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the figures he has given include married quarters which are to be built, or have been built at Fayed in the Canal Area?

Mr. Shinwell: I could not say without notice. The problem of Fayed is a much more complicated one.

Retired Indian Army Officers

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War what reserve of the Army may be joined by retired senior officers of the Indian Army who are now resident in the United Kingdom and still of a suitable age and health.

Mr. Shinwell: Retired officers of the Indian Army may be considered for appointment to either the Regular Army Reserve of Officers or the Army Officers Emergency Reserve. This was announced by advertisement in the Press on 31st December when an invitation to apply to join the Reserves was issued to all ex-Regular officers of the late Indian Army, and all non-Regular officers of both the British and the late Indian Armies. Details may be obtained from all Recruiting Offices, Territorial Army Associations, and Regimental Depôts or by written application to the War Office.

Mr. Low: Are these officers to be allowed to retain the substantive rank which they held at the time of the independence of India?

Mr. Shinwell: I could not say without notice.

Special Reserves

Mr. Low: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers and men previously on Class Z reserve have registered in the special registered reserves created by him in September, 1948.

Mr. Shinwell: It would not be in the public interest to give these numbers.

Mr. Low: Is it not very much in the public interest that the public should know that there are a lot of officers and men who are prepared to come forward at the right hon. Gentleman's request?

Mr. Shinwell: Nobody knows better than the hon. Gentleman that it is not in the public interest to give the number of persons in a particular category.

Singapore (Conditions)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the particulars which have been sent him about the conditions of the troops in Singapore; and what action he has taken.

Mr. Shinwell: As the hon. Member has been informed, it is difficult to make satisfactory enquiries into the complaints which he has quoted without more detailed information.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the right hon. Gentleman surprised that the recruitment of more people for the Armed Forces is so difficult when such conditions prevail? [HON. MEMBERS: "What conditions?"] The right hon. Gentleman knows. Is this not another instance of maladministration by the Socialist Government?

Mr. Shinwell: No. My surprise is exclusively confined to the fact that the hon. Member has put down a Question without giving me detailed information.

Road Repairs, Dorset

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Gallows Hill-Worgret Road in the Wareham-Bovington area is practically impassable for vehicles; that the Dorset County Council cannot undertake to repair the road unless he will give assurances that it will not again be used by tanks; and whether he will reach some settlement with the county council in order that the road may be again used by the public without risk of accident.

Mr. Shinwell: I regret that I cannot give the assurance asked for, but the repair of this road is under consideration in consultation with the Ministry of Transport.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this matter has been under consideration with the Ministry of Transport for some months now, that this road, as its name implies, is becoming something of a death trap, and will he give special consideration to the possibility of renovating it within the next few months?

Mr. Shinwell: I certainly will take into account the views of the noble Lord, but I understand that this road gives access to a tank training area and difficulties may arise. However, I will look into the matter.

Camp, Nairobi

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the unsatisfactory conditions prevailing in Banda II Camp, Nairobi, he proposes to close this camp.

Mr. Shinwell: I am making inquiries and will write to my hon. Friend when these have been completed.

Mr. Griffiths: Is not the Minister aware that the condition of the food supplied to these troops in Nairobi at Banda Camp is intolerable and disgusting; further, is he aware—I hope that he is—that a high ranking officer who visited the camp stated that it was not fit to live in? Does the Minister know that troops are reporting daily with dysentery, that no attempt is made to keep down the flies and that one trooper has died from dysentery?

Mr. Shinwell: I can assure my hon. Friend that these allegations will be inquired into.

Schools (Cadet Contingents)

Lord John Hope: asked the Secretary of State for War how many local authorities have refused to allow the formation of cadet forces in schools within their jurisdiction.

Mr. Shinwell: Complete information as to which local education authorities have refused to allow the formation of cadet contingents in schools within their jurisdiction is not available to my Department. I understand, however, that the great majority have no objection to cadet contingents in schools, and during 1948, 58 schools, previously without cadets, have raised new contingents.


At the moment there are already more cadets in schools than ever before, and my information is that in many areas consideration is being given to the formation of still more contingents.

Lord John Hope: Why cannot the Minister answer the Question on the Paper?

Mr. Shinwell: I think I have replied to the Question.

Lord John Hope: I asked how many local authorities had refused to allow the formation of these cadet forces. The Minister said the information was not available. May I ask why not?

Mr. Shinwell: Part of my reply was that complete information is not available.

Lord John Hope: Why not?

Mr. Shinwell: Because it is not complete information.

Officers' Uniforms

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War why, in the case of National Service men, the grant for officers' uniform on commission has been reduced from £50 to £30, in view of the fact that this decision will deter .many young men from seeking to take commissions.

Mr. Shinwell: As announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence on 19th January, the initial outfit allowance for National Service officers commissioned in the Army has been reduced because these officers will not be required to provide themselves with the full scale of uniform for Regular officers. Their new allowance will cover the full reasonable cost of their prescribed uniform.

Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister think it right to economise at the expense of young National Service officers, who will be required to dress in the same way as other officers when they are serving?

Mr. Shinwell: It is precisely because they are not required to dress in the same way that this reduction has been introduced.

Suez Canal Zone (Conditions)

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of recurring outrages against Europeans in the Suez Canal zone, culminating in the case of a young officer who within a few days of joining his unit was beaten up, stripped and left for dead; if he is aware of the indignation caused by the enclosure of the wives and children of British troops within the barbed wire defences of the camps; and if he will see to it that the authorities are provided with a reinforcement of European police adequate to guarantee safety within a reasonable distance outside the camp boundaries.

Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of the unprovoked attack on the officer referred to, and a few other isolated cases of violence against members of British Forces in the Canal Zone. I am not, however, aware of any indignation having been caused by enclosing the wives and children of British troops within the perimeter of their camps. This is a security measure designed for their protection against such assaults.
Military police at present maintain patrols in all areas occupied by Service personnel, and even if more police were available complete safety could not be guaranteed against attacks outside camps.

Sir J. Graham Kerr: May I ask the Minister if he is aware that the safety, not merely of British subjects, but of one of the great trade routes of the world is dependent on the maintenance of British prestige in the Middle East?

Mr. Shinwell: That is perfectly true. Nevertheless, officers, other ranks and all concerned must obey the instructions, and, if they fail to do so, then we obviously cannot provide safeguards.

Mr. Bramall: Can my right hon. Friend say from which side of the Egyptian frontier the assailants came?

Mr. Shinwell: Not without notice.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is it not a fact that the conditions in this particular camp are disgraceful, and that there are no worse conditions under which British troops have to serve? Will the Minister take a very early opportunity of rectifying the whole matter?

Mr. Shinwell: I would be very glad to do so, but there are physical difficulties.

Training Units (Meals)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has now given instructions that supper is to be provided each evening without fail for young soldiers serving in basic training units.

Mr. Shinwell: It is a basic principle that the soldier in mess is entitled to all his meals including supper if he wants it, and Unit Commanders are aware of their responsibility in this matter. If the Men's Messing Committee, which is constituted in every unit, recommends that for local reasons supper is not required for the unit as a whole on a particular night, then a more substantial high tea is served using the food which would have gone into the supper meal, but even in these cases an individual soldier who wants supper as well should be able to get it.

Mr. Hurd: Is the Minister aware that, in fact, young soldiers have had to go to bed hungry, unless they have had money in their pockets to enable them to go to N.A.A.F.I., and will he see that instructions are given that supper is regularly provided?

Mr. Shinwell: Instructions have been issued, and I have given personal attention to this matter, because I have visited some of the camps and have asked the question precisely if that was so. I have been assured in some cases that boys were not very keen about supper, but preferred to go down town and spend what money they had. In those cases where they want supper, the instructions are quite definite that they must have it.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that he gave a similar categorical assurance two months ago, and that I have been able to show him that that assurance was based upon information entirely without foundation? Will he therefore see that his present categorical statement has a better chance of success? Is he also telling the House that trainees are represented and know who their representatives are on these messing committees? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has been misled.

Mr. Shinwell: I can only say that, if instructions are received, we expect them

to be carried out. If they are not being carried out and information on specific cases is given to me I shall certainly deal with those responsible.

Mr. Nicholson: I have already done that.

Mr. Shinwell: In the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman, he will recall that I inquired into the allegations, and, although in some cases supper was not provided, there was no reason why, if the men asked for it, it should not have been forthcoming.

Soldier's Death, Tilehurst

Mr. Hurd: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has considered the recommendation of the coroner's jury inquiring into the death of Private Haverty at Ranikhet Camp, Tilehurst; and what steps are being taken to increase the medical staff there.

Mr. Shinwell: I am considering this matter and will write to the hon. Member. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my sympathy with Private Haverty's family.

Road Accident (Liability)

Mrs. Leah Manning: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that the British War Claims Commision have refused to accept service of proceedings in order to establish the question of liability in the case of an infant, Alan Ruffell, who was seriously injured when knocked down by transport driven by an American soldier in September, 1944; that this case has now been proceeding for some years; and what steps he proposes to take to end the continued evasion of the matter by the British War Claims Commission.

Mr. Shinwell: I will, with permission, circulate a statement on this case in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

In the light of the evidence given by the United States driver, and by a doctor, who was an independent witness of the accident, it was considered that no liability could be admitted on behalf of the United States Government for this accident. Accordingly, the boy's mother was informed that the claim was repudiated. An ex gratia payment of £28


was, however, made to cover the mother's out-of-pocket expenses, and, in addition, the hospital charges, totalling approximately £159, were met in full by my Department. These payments, which were made in July, 1946, were stated to be in full and final settlement of all claims arising out of the accident and were made without any admission of liability. The claimant took no further action to reopen the matter until September, 1947, 14 months later, and three years after the accident. Subsequently, my hon. Friend wrote on 20th July, 1948, and the circumstances were fully explained to her in a letter dated 7th August. Since then no further communication has been received from anyone representing the claimant. I cannot, therefore, see that there has been any evasion of the matter.

My Department did not instruct the Treasury Solicitor to accept service of proceedings, because the further claim which was being pressed did not appear to fall within the scope of the agreement entered into with the United States Government.

If the United States authorities and my Department were to agree to the matter now being litigated 4½ years after the accident, the case of the United States driver (whose testimony is vital, and who has long since left this country) would be gravely prejudiced by reason of the delay that has occurred.

The question whether any further payment of an ex gratia character is warranted, as already indicated in the letter to my hon. Friend, is primarily a matter for the United States authorities. My Department is, however, consulting with those authorities to see whether any such further ex-gratia payment can be made.

Scarborough—Whitby Road (Practice Firing)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps will be taken to avoid danger to passing traffic when practice firing takes place across the Scarborough and Whitby road.

Mr. Shinwell: Guns will be kept so far back that no risk will arise to users of the roads. Nor will the noise of firing be sufficient to distract the attention of drivers. The type of shell and fuse to be used and the minimum range on which the guns may be, fired will be subject to strict rules.

Mr. Spearman: Does the Minister agree that sometimes shells do fall a long way short, and that, in fact, a roadman on a neighbouring road was killed during target practice in 1945? Will he give an assurance that there will be no stoppage of traffic between these two important seaside resorts?

Mr. Shinwell: I will certainly do all I can to help the hon. Member most concerned.

Mr. York: Is the Minister telling the House that there will be a constant stream of shells going over this important road all the way through the holiday season?

Mr. Shinwell: I certainly have said nothing of the sort.

Barrack Rooms (Painting)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for War in how many instances his department have been unable to get a contractor to tender for the painting of barrack rooms which require brightening up; and if he has had communications on this subject from the Federation of Painting Contractors or has himself approached the federation with a view to overcoming this hindrance to recruiting.

Mr. Shinwell: There were in the past some difficulties about the supply of labour and paint, although no figures are available which would illustrate the precise effects of these difficulties. I have been in communication with the Federation of Painting Contractors about the matter. I am glad to learn that little difficulty in obtaining tenders, except in a few isolated areas, now appears to be likely.

Major Legge-Bourke: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman find out all these facts at the time when he gave an exclusive interview to the "News of the World," in which he said that the main difficulty was to get the contractors to tender?

Mr. Shinwell: I said it was one of the difficulties; a minor difficulty, but, nevertheless, a difficulty.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the Minister consult his Department before he gives any further interviews?

Mr. Shinwell: We are always in close consultation.

Forces, Gold Coast

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for War how many British troops are at present stationed in the Gold Coast Colony; to what extent it is proposed to increase the numbers in the near future; how many were stationed there 12 months ago; and what is the reason for the increase.

Mr. Shinwell: It is not the policy to give information about the number of troops stationed in a particular area.

Posting, East Africa

Mr. Butcher: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the reason for the sudden posting away from East Africa in or about May, 1948, of Sergeant-Major Peacock, responsible for air bookings, Mogadiscio.

Mr. Shinwell: I am making inquiries into this case, but it would be helpful if the hon. Member could supply the soldier's regimental particulars.

Oral Answers to Questions — TERRITORIAL ARMY

Centres

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War why the well-known term, "Drill Hall," has been superseded by a new title, "T.A. Centre"; and what is the advantage, military or otherwise, to be derived from the change.

Mr. Shinwell: Drill forms only a small part of the modern soldier's training. I think that the new name more accurately describes the purpose which the centres are intended in future to fulfil.

Mr. Vane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this will certainly add to the confusion? Territorial headquarters have been affectionately known as drill halls for a very long time and will continue so to be known.

Mr. Shinwell: There is no confusion whatever, except in the mind of the hon. Member. The fact is that much more than training is carried out in these territorial centres. We have to store equipment there, and besides, we hope that these centres will be the hub of social activities associated with the Territorial Army.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that these

places always have been the hub of social activities associated with the Territorial Army?

Mr. Shinwell: But the social activities that we have in mind are very much better social activities.

Sir Harvie Watt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever these drill halls may be called officially, they will always be known by the Territorials as drill halls?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not this a case of a rose by any other name smelling just as sweet?

Mr. Shinwell: As long as it is sweet, it does not matter.

Mr. Vane: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how often he has been in a drill hall in his own constituency for social activities or otherwise?

Mr. Shinwell: In fact, I have been in the drill hall at Seaham Harbour several times, but I do not know what that has to do with the Question.

Miners, Durham (Recruitment)

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the unhelpful attitude of the National Coal Board in Durham in comparison with previous colliery companies, towards recruiting for the Territorial Army; and whether he will make fresh approaches to the National Coal Board to ensure that his Department's literature may be appropriately displayed on National Coal Board premises and ask that National Coal Board officials should accept membership of local recruiting committees.

Mr. Shinwell: I am informed by the Durham Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Association that the Northern Divisional Coal Board are in general adopting a helpful attitude towards recruiting for the Territorial Army.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that, in spite of the allegations in the Question, Durham County has a higher recruiting figure for the Territorial Army than almost any other county in the country, and can my right hon. Friend say how the figure compares with the figure for Westmorland?

Mr. Shinwell: To the best of my knowledge, Durham compares favourably with Westmorland.

Accommodation (Expenditure)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War the sum which it is estimated will be spent during the current financial year on accommodation, including drill halls and training camps, for the Territorial Army.

Mr. Shinwell: A little over £2 million.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the difficulties which confront Territorial units, especially heavy anti-aircraft units, owing to this lack of accommodation; and is it not a fact that, at the present rate of expenditure, it will be something like 1968 before full accommodation is provided? Will he arrange to accelerate the matter?

Mr. Shinwell: In fact, we intended to spend more than £2 million in the current year, but have been unable to do so because of the difficulty in procuring land, and because of the negotiations which arose out of the acquisition of property.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Does the Minister wish the House seriously to understand that no more than £2 million can be spent because of the difficulties in acquiring land?

Mr. Shinwell: That is precisely what I said.

Warlike Stores

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will state the amount provided in the current estimates for warlike stores for the Territorial Army; the amount which it is estimated will be actually expended during the current financial year on the provision of such warlike stores; and the amount of the further expenditure which it is anticipated will be required for the provision of warlike stores for the Territorial Army between the end of the current financial year and the attainment of full strength by the Territorial Army.

Mr. Shinwell: The amount provided in Army Estimates for warlike stores is for the Army as a whole. This follows the policy of treating the Active Army and the Territorial Army as one. It is not practicable, therefore, to apportion the provision made between them. Stocks

of equipment, vehicles, guns and other warlike stores are regarded as a common source from which to meet the requirements of units of the Active Army and of the Territorial Army as they arise. No separate accounts are kept for this purpose.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Does that statement mean that very much less was spent and is being spent than was estimated and is necessary; and does the right hon. Gentleman realise that some Territorial units have had up-to-date equipment taken away from them and out-of-date equipment substituted? Does he think it possible for the Territorial Army to attain anything like efficiency by such methods?

Mr. Shinwell: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will furnish me with details of units where modern equipment has been replaced by obsolete equipment, I shall be glad to have it.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I shall be very glad to do so.

Brigadier Head: Is the Minister aware that, apart from the present situation, unless money and material for realistic training are available in the future, the whole of this scheme will be turned into a farce; and, further, will he convince us that he is aware of that, and will take it into account?

Mr. Shinwell: I am certainly aware of that; I entirely agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH RESETTLEMENT CORPS

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Poles now remain in the Resettlement Corps, showing general officers, field officers, junior officers, N.C.O.'s and other ranks separately.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give the number of Poles who now remain in the Polish Resettlement Corps, showing each rank separately; and what is the rate of payment for each rank.

Mr. Shinwell: As the answer contains many figures I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the numbers in the Polish Resettlement Corps at 1st January. As regards their pay, I would refer to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 1st March last.

Mr. Bramall: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the total number of those still in the Resettlement Corps?

Mr. Shinwell: The total number of officers is 6,202, the total number of other ranks is 6,978, making a grand total of 13,180.

Mr. Beswick: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the continued payment of public funds to these men represents a public scandal and that part of the trouble is that the responsibility is divided between different Ministers; would he recommend to the Prime Minister that one Minister be put in charge to clear up the situation?

Mr. Shinwell: I am fully conscious of the need for liquidating this corps and providing alternative employment. Negotiations have been proceeding for some time between my Department and the Ministry of Labour and National Service on this subject, and considerable progress has been achieved. We are very anxious to bring this matter to an early end and I hope that we shall succeed.

Following is the table:


OFFICERS


Ranks
Male
Female


Lieutenant-General
…
11
—


Major-General
…
37
—


Colonel
…
136
—


Lieutenant-Colonel
…
309
3


Major
…
629
13


Captain
…
1,273
70


Lieutenant
…
1,742
191


2nd/Lieutenant
…
1,755
33


Total
…
5,892
310




OTHER RANKS


Ranks
Male
Female


Warrant Officer I.
…
217
—


Sergeant-Major
…
632
14


Staff Sergeant
…
1,155
34


Sergeant
…
1,223
24


Corporal
…
949
41


Lance-Corporal
…
912
50


Private
…
1,605
122


Total
…
6,693
285




TOTAL, OFFICERS
…
…
6,202


TOTAL, OTHER RANKS
…
…
6,978


GRAND TOTAL, ALL RANKS
…
…
13,180

The above figures do not include members of the Polish Resettlement Corps. (R.A.F.).

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether any time limit has been given to the members of the Polish Resettlement Corps by which they must enter civilian employment or be deprived of military rates of pay.

Mr. Shinwell: A man's period of service in the Polish Resettlement Corps is either two years, or one year, according to the date on which he entered the Corps. If at the end of this period of service he has not entered civilian employment, he is discharged from the Corps, and ceases to draw military rates of pay. So far most members of the Corps have entered civilian employment, or applied to emigrate, well before the end of their period of service. A member of the Corps who without justification refuses a reasonable offer of civilian employment during his period of service, is discharged forthwith and thereupon ceases to draw military rates of pay.

Mr. Bramall: Can my right hon. Friend say what is the latest date at which any of these people will have completed their period of two years' service; and will he also say whether it has been made clear to the senior officers that, although they may expect to have a livelihood provided for them, they cannot go on being paid at these comparatively high rates?

Mr. Shinwell: I require notice of the first part of the supplementary question. In regard to the second part, we have discussed these matters with the body responsible for the administration of the Polish Resettlement Corps and we have made it clear to them that alternative employment must be accepted. On the whole we have succeeded, but hon. Members must bear in mind that a fairly large number of members of this Corps are elderly and infirm persons, and that presents a different problem.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Can my right hon. Friend say how many people in this Corps now drawing their ordinary pay have been in the Corps for longer than the one or two years normally allowed?

Mr. Shinwell: I should require notice of that question.

General Sir George Jeffreys: Can the Minister say what happens to the man when he is discharged from this Corps for not having taken up employment?

Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that, unless he has means of his own or can rely on the charity of friends, he must go to the Public Assistance Authority.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread indignation about this situation—much of it justified, some of it perhaps unjustified—and will he do his best to hurry up a settlement in the best interests of the Poles themselves, in order to prevent the spread of mere xenophobia, which is always wrong?

Mr. Shinwell: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have given personal attention to this matter. I have visited some of the depots and I have assured myself that all possible progress is being made.

Sir Peter Macdonald: Is it not a fact that thousands of these Poles had volunteered for work in the mines, but that they were not allowed to go there because of the trade union's refusal?

Mr. Speaker: The question dealt only with a time limit, not with whether they should work in the mines or not.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary some time ago stated that, when men refused various alternatives offered to them, they would be expatriated? Has that idea now been dropped, because his answer will, I am sure, cause great disquiet in the country as to what will happen to men who leave the Resettlement Corps without having any work?

Mr. Shinwell: In some cases, arrangements have been made for expatriation, but it has not been possible to do that in every case.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister consider inaugurating a campaign to get these men to return to their own country, in view of the exposure of the fraudulent campaign which was used to keep them here?

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for War how many dependants' allowances are now paid to members of

the Polish Resettlement Corps and at what rate; and how the present figures compare with those at a convenient date in 1947.

Mr. Shinwell: Dependants' allowance as such is not payable to members of the Polish Resettlement Corps. Married members of the Corps are paid marriage allowance for wives and children resident in the United Kingdom at the rates in force for British officers and men before the marriage allowance increases announced on 24th November, and under the same conditions, except that where public accommodation and food are provided for the family no marriage allowance is paid. There are at present 2,632 members of the Corps receiving marriage allowance as compared with 3,161 in August, 1947.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for War how many members of the Polish Resettlement Force are at the same time engaged in remunerative private business.

Mr. Shinwell: Members of the Polish Resettlement Corps are not forbidden to undertake remunerative work during their spare time. I cannot say how many in fact do so. If, however, it appears in any particular case that the man is able to support himself his relegation to the Reserve is considered in consultation with the Ministry of Labour. Three such cases are under consideration at present.

Mr. Beswick: Is not the point that the whole of the time of these men is spare time, and is it not a fact that in these days it is almost as rare to see a Polish Resettlement officer without a bulging brief case as it used to be before the war to see an S.S. man in Berlin without a Mercedes car?

Mr. Shinwell: If a member of the Polish Resettlement Corps goes about with a brief case, it must not be assumed that he is engaged on some alternative employment.

Mr. Bramall: Is my right hon. Friend telling the House that while the time of these men is paid for at the same rate as that of British officers and men, that is, on the basis of 24 hours a day at the disposal of the Government, they can use that time as they like for pursuing their own remunerative ends?

Mr. Shinwell: I have said nothing of the sort. I said that, so far, we have only discovered three cases, and are dealing with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

House Building, Outer London

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether the recommendations of the Abercrombie Report are being followed in relation to the building of houses in the outer country ring of London; and whether he will state the number of houses built in the outer country ring since the acceptance of the report.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir," subject to certain modifications set out in my memorandum on the Greater London Plan. The answer to the second part of the Question is approximately 13,000.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister say whether the methods which he contemplated a year or two ago for building new satellite towns can be expedited in order to relieve the congestion of the population in Central London?

Mr. Silkin: They are being expedited as far as conditions permit.

Hope Valley (Cement Works)

Mr. H. D. Hughes: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what alternatives were considered to the proposed extension of the Hope Valley cement works before approval was given; and what were the reasons for rejecting the proposals for restricting the height of chimney and developing Cauldon Low as an alternative source of supply after the next few years.

Mr. Silkin: The proposed works at Cauldon Low and the extension of the works at Hope are both necessary to achieve the required level of production for the home and export markets. Cauldon Low is not, therefore, an alternative. New or expanded works in other parts of the country will be necessary as well. Sites containing the necessary mineral deposits of suitable quality and

quantity are very limited and I know of no satisfactory alternative to Hope that would give an equivalent output. The height of the chimney has been restricted to 400 feet which should be just sufficient to deal effectively with the emissions from the works. I am satisfied that any further limitation on the height would not have been in the interests of the people who live in the area.

Mr. Hughes: While appreciating the need for cement production, may I ask if the Minister is aware that technical experts, including a professor of fuel technology at Sheffield University, have stated that a much shorter chimney combined with efficient waste gas clearing plant would be more effective to do the job; and would he set up a technical committee to review this matter again?

Mr. Silkin: I cannot review this particular matter. The whole thing was threshed out at great length at the public inquiry, and I am satisfied that I have all the relevant information before me.

Mr. Molson: Is the Minister prepared to put a report of the whole of the proceedings of the inquiry into the Library? This point was raised with the Parliamentary Secretary the other day, and he undertook to give consideration to it. Can the Minister now give us an assurance on this point?

Mr. Silkin: We have placed in the Library the decision letter which has gone out and which is a pretty full account of the reasons which actuated us.

Development Charge

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning (1) whether, in view of the Central Land Board's decision that the cubic contents of buildings occupying small sites cannot be aggregated for the purpose of assessing the development charge when re-development is contemplated with a single composite building over, the amalgamated sites, he will make an Order that such aggregation will be permitted, since refusal to do so is imposing severe hardship on owners of such sites and is impeding practical schemes of development;
(2) if he will make a regulation to the effect that where a development scheme has received his Department's approval


the aggregation of the cubic content of all the buildings upon the site of such development will be permitted.

Mr. Silkin: The answer is "No, Sir." The hon. Member no doubt has in mind the building of a block of flats on a site formerly occupied by a number of houses. The owner in such a case has a claim under Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, in respect of any diminution in value resulting from the Act.

Sir R. Glyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the advantage of clarifying some of these very complicated regulations which are undoubtedly holding up building and development generally?

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Gentleman will tell me which particular regulation he finds difficult to understand, I will certainly have another look at it.

Fylingdale Moor (Report)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will publish the full report on the recent inquiry that led to his decision to use Fylingdale Moor as a training centre.

Mr. Silkin: The publication of confidential reports such as this made to a Minister to assist him in coming to a decision, has for long been regarded as undesirable, and I see no reason for making an exception in this case.

Mr. Spearman: In view of the very strong local opposition to this decision, does not the Minister think it would be fair to publish all the facts which actuated that decision; and will he also publish particulars of the alternative sites which were considered before it was decided to accept this area for a training ground?

Mr. Silkin: This matter was not decided in a hole-and-corner manner. There was a public inquiry, and the evidence is public property. We have published the letter which actuated our decision, and, therefore, the public have all the information available.

Mr. Granville Sharp: Can my right hon. Friend say to what extent the public will be denied access to this part of the proposed national park area?

Mr. Silken: That is another question. If the hon. Member will put it down, I will answer it.

Mr. Turton: In view of the fact that this is a large part of a national park area, will the Minister place a report of the proceedings in the Library so that hon. Members can read it before the Debate on the National Parks Bill?

Mr. Silkin: That is exactly the question I have answered.

Mr. Turton: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman if he will place in the Library for hon. Members of this House, and not for publication, the proceedings of the inquiry?

Mr. Silkin: I am not prepared to do that.

Housing Site, Horncastle

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether a decision can now be given to the application made by the Horncastle U.D.C. to build houses on a site at the corner of Louth Road and Low Toynton Road, in view of the fact that consultations on this question between Ministries have taken a considerable time and are holding up the erection of houses in this area.

Mr. Silkin: The site in question consists of good farming land and will probably be cut through by a proposed new trunk road. These objections, with proposals for alternative sites, have been referred to the local planning authority, and are being considered today at a meeting between representatives of the authorities and Ministries concerned. I hope a satisfactory solution to the difficulties will be found.

Commander Maitland: In view of the fact that there appear to be such good reasons, can the Minister say why it has taken so long to give a decision to this Council on this matter? Does he not realise that it has been holding up the building of houses for a very considerable time?

Mr. Silkin: Undoubtedy there has been delay, but I am not answerable for the authorities.

New Towns

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what complaints he has received from the New Town Corporations of administrative difficulties arising out of the present procedure for the approval of schemes by the Departments concerned and by the local authorities.

Mr. Silkin: I have no reason to believe that New Towns Corporations are experiencing difficulties with Government Departments or local authorities which are either serious or irremediable.

Mr. Albu: Is not my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling of frustration on the part of the highly skilled staffs of these corporations at the treatment they are receiving, in so far as they are being treated no differently from the builders of quite a small number of houses?

Mr. Silkin: I am not aware of it and I am in very close touch with the various corporations. If the hon. Member has any information on this matter I should be very glad to have it.

Mr. Mott-Radcliffe: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning (1) what consultations took place between the regional planning officer and the land utilisation officer before the Draft Designation Order in respect of the new town at Bracknell was made;
(2) whether the Minister of Agriculture was consulted before the Draft Designation Order was made in respect of the new town at Bracknell, by which 2,500 acres of agricultural land and 36 agricultural holdings are affected.

Mr. Silkin: I did consult my right hon. Friend not only before the Draft Designation Order was published but before I reached any conclusion that Bracknell appeared suitable for expansion. These consultations included discussions between my Regional Controller and the Provincial Land Commissioner on the extent and relative value of all the farm holdings in the area which might be affected by a Draft Order. On a point of information, only about half the 2,600 acres provisionally designated is agricultural land.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe: Could the right hon. Gentleman explain why, out of a number of alternative sites, the one selected was the one most intensively cultivated?

Mr. Silkin: Because it was thought to be the most suitable for the erection of a new town.

Mr. York: Are we to gather from that reply that the claims of the suitability of town making shall overweigh the advantages of the land for agricultural purposes?

Mr. Silkin: No, of course not. The hon. Member must understand that all factors are taken into account, including the claims of agriculture.

War Damage (Displaced Property)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if the replacement of dwellings acquired under the Town and Country Planning Act is to be restricted to maximum selling price and superficial area on the same basis as applies to war damage property payments; or is it to be related to the floor area and value of the displaced property.

Mr. Silkin: Under Section 30 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, as amended and incorporated in the 1947 Act, the criterion is the reasonable requirements of the displaced person. Normally the basis to be adopted will be that used for war damage value payments, but special treatment will be possible in exceptional circumstances.

Mr. Awbery: Is it the position that a house which has been damaged by enemy action, the site of which is subsequently taken under the Town and Country Planning Act, is to be dealt with under the War Damage Act, with its restrictions on superficial area and selling price, or is it to be dealt with under the Town and Country Planning Act, where there is no such restriction?

Mr. Silkin: That is the question I have tried to answer. Broadly, we will try to provide equivalent accommodation, unless the circumstances are exceptional.

Bombed Areas (Declaratory Orders)

Mr. Thomas Lewis: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will state, in respect of each of the severely bombed cities and towns, in which cases declaratory orders under the Town and Country Planning Acts, 1944 and 1947, have already been made; the


acreage in each case covered by such orders; and, in connection with these declaratory orders, the number of compulsory purchase orders made to date, excluding overspill areas, and the total acreage covered by such orders.

Mr. Silkin: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Lewis: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason for the very serious delay in the issue of compulsory purchase orders? So far as Southampton is

DECLARATORY ORDERS AND ASSOCIATED COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDERS IN SEVERELY BOMBED CITIES AND TOWNS


Name of Local Authority
Declaratory orders Made
Compulsory Purchase Orders Confirmed


Number
Approximate Acreage
Number
Approximate Acreage


(1) Landon Area


Beckenham B
…
1*
6
—
—


City of London
…
1
231
—
—


Finchley B.
…
1
6
—
—


Hornsey B.
…
1
10
—
—


Leyton B.
…
3
21
2
6


London C. (Stepney, Poplar)
…
1
1,312
—
—


Tottenham B.
…
1
39
—
—


Twickenham B.
…
3
21
—
—




12
1,646
2
6


(2) Provincial Cities and Towns






Bristol C.B.
…
1
247
1
4½


Coventry C.B.
…
1
274
4
2½


Deal B.
…
1
4
—
—


Dover B.
…
1
143
1
½


Exeter C.B.
…
1
75
2
66


Great Yarmouth C.B.
…
1
35
—
—


Grimsby C.B.
…
1
35
—
—


Kingston upon Hull C.B.
…
1*
212
—
—


Liverpool C.B.
…
1
46
—
—


Manchester C.B.
…
4*
67
—
—


Norwich C.B.
…
1
41
—
—


Nuneaton B.
…
1*
3
—
—


Plymouth C.B.
…
7*
415
7
142


Portsmouth C.B.
…
1
430
2
13


Salford C.B.
…
3*
17
—
—


Southampton C.B.
…
1
261
3
2½


South Shields C.B.
…
1
13
1
3


Swansea C.B.
…
1
134
1
26


Wallasey C.B.
…
1
21
—
—


Weymouth and Melcombe Regis B.
…
1
24
1
10½




31
2,497
23
270½


* Including Declaratory Orders in respect of which a formal Order has not yet been issued, but the Minister has informed the Local Authority of the area to be designated.

concerned, the delay in the issue of compulsory purchase orders is having a very serious effect upon the life and well-being of the borough.

Mr. Silkin: I would advise my hon. Friend to look at the figures which I am circulating before he makes such an allegation.

Mr. Lewis: I can certainly say that so far as my own borough is concerned we have not received them, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may say about other boroughs.

Following is the reply:

Housing Accommodation, Buxton

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when the Buxton Corporation may expect a decision upon their application to erect huts at Ladmanlow to accommodate the squatters now occupying the Empire Hotel which constitutes in its present condition a danger td public health.

Mr. Silkin: A reply will be sent as soon as the views of the County Council, who are the planning authority, are known. I understand that the Planning Committee of the County Council is meeting to consider the matter on 28th January.

Mr. Molson: How long has this application been before the County Council?

Mr. Silkin: I do not know. The original application was made on 22nd November, but not to the County Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Purchase Tax

Mr. Erroll: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why domestic type water softeners which have been modified for industrial requirements are now being relieved of Purchase Tax when industrial gas water heaters in a similar tax group are not so exempted.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): The intention is in both cases that only those types which are designed exclusively for industrial use shall be exempt from tax. Inquiries are being made about the way in which this intention is being carried out, and I will write to the hon. Member later.

Mr. Erroll: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman writes to me, will he take into consideration the fact that other Ministries are pressing a number of industrial concerns to install suitable washing facilities in their premises, and that therefore it is most undesirable to maintain Purchase Tax on water heaters when his Department has, in fact, already removed the tax from water softeners for such purposes?

Sir S. Cripps: I will ascertain how the matter is being dealt with and write to the hon. Member about it.

Mr. Charles Williams: Why may we not all have that knowledge?

Sir S. Cripps: Because the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) is interested in it.

Mr. Erroll: As several hon. Members have already stated that they are interested in this matter from the point of view of their own constituents, I would be grateful if the answer could be circulated in HANSARD so that my secretary could be spared the labour of re-typing the Chancellor's reply.

Sir S. Cripps: I will see that the hon. Member is sent some copies.

Mr. Awbery: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the Purchase Tax on a variety of household utensils has prevented the housewives from obtaining them; that this restriction on demand has already reflected itself in a reduction in the amount of work performed by part-time workers and is likely to create unemployment in the factories producing for the home market; and whether he will take early steps to remove the tax on such utensils.

Sir S. Cripps: There has been some decline in sales of both tax-free and taxable articles of this class, but as regards the last part of the Question I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement.

Mr. Awbery: Would not the extra production created by the removal of this tax help the export market as well as the home market?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think that that necessarily follows.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Purchase Tax at 66⅔ per cent. is levied on household dusters manufactured from 4 in. by 2 in. flannelette which was Government surplus stock; and if he will remove such articles from the category of luxury articles.

Sir S. Cripps: The 66⅔ per cent. rate applies to non-Utility household textile articles generally. It is, therefore, not a luxury rate, and I could not deal with particular kinds of dusters separately.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really think


that the unfortunate housewives should have to pay 66⅔ per cent. on articles of this description?

Sir S. Cripps: One cannot deal with a particular article separately in the Purchase Tax.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think he is entitled to take a double profit on these, once when they are sold and once when they are taxed later?

Teacher (Distillers) Ltd. (Share Issue)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he approved the recent issue of 1,000,000 preferred shares by Teacher (Distillers) Ltd.

Sir S. Cripps: Treasury consent to the issue of this company's capital was given on the advice of the Capital Issues Committee.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Chancellor aware that the lists for this issue were closed in three minutes because £20 million was subscribed? Will he consider diverting some of this into the Exchequer?

Sir S. Cripps: That will, no doubt, be a matter for the Budget.

Mr. Butcher: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman say how much of the proceeds of this issue will eventually reach him in terms of Death Duties?

Sir S. Cripps: I could not say, unless the hon. Member could tell me when the various people will die.

Motor Tax (Refund)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange with local authorities for a refund to motorists of motor tax for the period of the past year during which only the standard ration of petrol was drawn in those cases in which the motorist was informed by the Post Office that it was not necessary to take any steps to secure such refund until a new licence was taken out at the beginning of this year.

Sir S. Cripps: I am not aware of any case where a Post Office has so informed a motorist, but if the hon. Member will supply details of any particular case I will arrange for inquiries to be made.

Special Contribution, Northern Ireland

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to charge taxpayers in Northern Ireland interest on the special contribution for the period between 1st January, 1949, and the passing of legislation designed to make the levying of the special contribution lawful in Northern Ireland.

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. The special contribution was intended to apply in Northern Ireland in the same way as in the rest of the United Kingdom, and the legislation I propose is designed to make clear that it does so apply.

Sir R. Ross: Does the Chancellor think it right, particularly with his distinguished legal knowledge, that people should have to pay interest on money which is not legally due and that there should be retrospective legislation to that effect; or does he think it is now legal in which case the legislation he proposes is redundant?

Sir S. Cripps: There seems to be some doubt whether it is legal or not and, therefore, it is better to put the matter at rest and not trouble people with litigation.

Income Tax

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the new Double Taxation Agreements with the Colonies call upon companies to pay larger sums for Colonial Income Tax and correspondingly smaller sums for United Kingdom Tax; that companies having large holdings of United Kingdom Tax Reserve Certificates, which they are accordingly unable to surrender in satisfaction of United Kingdom tax liabilities within the prescribed period of two years during which interest accrues, lose all interest upon such Tax Reserve Certificates, as these cannot be accepted in payment of Colonial taxes by the Colonial Income Tax Office in London; and whether arrangements will be made with the Colonial Income Tax Office to accept Tax Reserve Certificates and interest accrued thereon in settlement of Colonial tax payable in the United Kingdom.

Sir S. Cripps: Tax Reserve Certificates may be tendered in payment of United Kingdom tax which falls due at any time up to five years from the date of issue, not two years as stated in the Question, but the allowance of interest is limited to a period not exceeding two years. It is not practicable to arrange for the acceptance of Tax Reserve Certificates in payment of Colonial Income Tax.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does the Chancellor appreciate that his answer will mean that the public will be discouraged from using London as a centre in which to keep their balances in the way they have done hitherto?

Sir S. Cripps: I think there are other factors more important than this one which will influence them.

Captain John Crowder: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is willing to consider proposals for relief from payment of a limited amount of Income Tax by a person who suffers from permanent physical disability and who satisfies the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that by reason thereof he is obliged to maintain a motor car for travelling from his home to his place of work so that he may be enabled to work at his trade or employment.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot anticipate my Budget Statement.

Captain Crowder: I asked the Chancellor if he would consider this question. Will he consider giving some relief to disabled men who cannot get to work without a motor car? Would he not agree that it might be cheaper for the Revenue to allow him some relief than to pay him unemployment pay because he could not get to work?

Sir S. Cripps: I am quite prepared to consider that point.

Mr. James Hudson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an estimate of the total annual amounts paid, respectively, in Income Tax by organisations which describe themselves as political parties and those described as religious, educational or charitable, but compelled to pay Income Tax because they seek to secure certain of their objects by legislative means; and whether he will consider altering regula-

tions which deprive bodies like the Temperance Council of the Christian Churches from such exemption from tax as is enjoyed by other Christian charitable bodies.

Sir S. Cripps: The information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. As regards the second part, this is not a matter of regulations, but of the general law relating to charities; and I cannot propose a special exemption from tax for bodies which are not charitable.

Mr. Hudson: As my right hon. and learned Friend is not able to obtain the information for which I ask, does he not think it wise not to be so satisfied as he expressed himself the other day to be with the regulations under which these things are done?

External Trade (Invisible Earnings)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, by the statement in paragraph 196 of Command Paper No. 7572 that though by 1952 net invisible earnings will be the same value as 1938, the buying power in terms of imports will be little more than one third, he assumes there will be no improvement in the terms of our external trade before 1952.

Sir S. Cripps: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 4 of the Foreword to Cmd. 7572.

Mr. Osborne: Does the Chancellor know whether all his Cabinet colleagues have read that paragraph and understand it?

Sir S. Cripps: That is another question.

British Assets Abroad (Sale)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent in the calendar year 1948 has a reduction in the drain on the gold and hard currency reserves of this country been achieved by the sale of British assets in foreign countries.

Sir S. Cripps: During 1948 the sale of British assets in the non-sterling area has been very small except in the case of Argentina, where about £155 million of British assets were sold, being almost


wholly the formerly British-owned railways which were disposed of under financial arrangements debated in the House on 23rd February, 1948, and Brazil, where such sales as have taken place have been financed in accordance with Article 19 of the Trade and Payments Agreement dated 21st May, 1948.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the Chancellor give any estimate of what the other sums, to which he referred as small, will amount to in the course of a full year?

Sir S. Cripps: I think that they are quite negligible compared with the sums I have mentioned.

Mr. Nicholson: Could this information be given in some official publication or must it be elicited by question and answer?

Sir S. Cripps: I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Would the Chancellor consider giving details of this sort in the Economic Survey for next year, because, of course, they do bear very much on the real deficit which we have to meet?

Sir S. Cripps: I will certainly bear that in mind.

Industrial Organisation (Charts)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for how many regions of the Regional Organisation for Industry have charts and descriptions of the organisations been published, similar to the one recently published by the London and South-Eastern Regional Board.

Sir S. Cripps: Booklets and charts similar to those issued by the London and South-Eastern Regional Board for Industry were issued by each of the other 10 Regional Boards last November.

Anglo-Iranian Oil Company

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what points of the concession held by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company are to be discussed with the Persian Government; and

what action His Majesty's Government is taking to ensure that British interests are adequately safeguarded in these discussions.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot give any information as to the company's discussions with the Persian Government. As regards the second part of the Question, the company's representatives will keep in close touch With His Majesty's Embassy in Tehran.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: When the Chancellor says he cannot, does he mean that he will not, because the Government own the majority of the shares in this company? Is he aware that under Article 21 of the Concession the Persian Government said that this concession could not be altered? What are these new arguments that are now arising, and what concessions are in view by His Majesty's Government?

Sir S. Cripps: These negotiations are going on between the company and the Persian Government, in which I do not propose to interfere.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: But as the Government are the main shareholders, surely it is their duty to interfere to see that the shareholders get a fair deal?

Sir S. Cripps: It is not the duty of the shareholders to interfere with the directors when they are carrying out their job.

Great Universal Stores, Ltd. (Dollar Facilities)

Mr. Nally: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the reasons for his decision to afford Great Universal Stores, Ltd., the necessary dollar facilities to extend its activities in the United States.

Mr. Drayson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what opportunities were given to companies in Great Britain to put forward proposals for direct retail sales in the U.S.A. before 750,000 dollars were allotted for this purpose to the Great Universal Stores Company.

Sir S. Cripps: All companies in Great Britain have an equal right and opportunity to put forward proposals for capital investment outside the sterling area for any purpose for which it is required. There is no question of giving special opportunities to any one particular firm.


The Great Universal Stores project is one among a large number of applications for every kind of development abroad, which have come before the Exchange Control and have been dealt with by that Control on their merits. The sanction required was solely for the expenditure of dollars, and Exchange Control approval means only that the project is one which, on general balance of payments grounds, is considered to be in the national interest. In the case of Great Universal Stores their project appeared to provide a new and promising outlet for sales of United Kingdom goods in the United States. There is, of course, no question of public funds being involved, nor of Government sponsorship of any kind.

Mr. Nally: Does the Chancellor consider it to be in the national interest that a firm, whose labour record is notoriously bad over a period of, at least, 12 years, should be given this opportunity, when that labour record has been adversely commented on in the courts on, at least, three occasions? Can I have a quite definite assurance from the Chancellor that no particular preference will be given to applications of this kind for dollar earnings because it is felt that the personalities associated with the applications are likely to be able to blunt the sharp edge of the boycott campaign that has been running until quite recently in New York?

Sir S. Cripps: None of the matters which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned has come into consideration; nor do they come into consideration.

Mr. Stanley: Is there some special machinery which deals with applications for dollar credits of this kind, or do they go straight to the Exchange Control in the ordinary way?

Sir S. Cripps: They go through the Exchange Control in the ordinary way.

Mr. Osborne: Before granting any further special concessions, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the unwisdom of using special shops in America to sell British goods and going behind the back of the great organisations already selling British goods, and in the end doing more harm than good?

Sir S. Cripps: There is no question of setting up special shops here at all.

Mr. Osborne: I thought that there was.

Pawnbrokers, Scotland

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pawnbrokers were registered in Scotland in 1938 and 1948, respectively.

Sir S. Cripps: Three hundred and nineteen and 225 in the financial years 1937–38 and 1947–48. The official figures are for financial years.

Mr. Hughes: Would the Chancellor agree that the decline in this industry is due to less poverty and less unemployment among the workers of Scotland?

Sir S. Cripps: I imagine so, and also to the nature of the Scottish character.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: While there has been a decrease in the number of pawnbrokers, has there not been a large increase in the number of unredeemed pledges?

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to know all about that.

Food Subsidies

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the out-turn of food subsidies at the end of the financial year 1948–49.

Sir S. Cripps: £484 million.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Chancellor aware that there is a grave discrepancy between this figure of £484 million which he has just given, and that given in his answer in September to the effect that there would be anticipated savings in the coming year enabling the subsidy to come out at £470 million at the end of the financial year? Has he any comment to make on this deplorable trend?

Sir S. Cripps: This is due, of course, to the increase in prices.

Government Advertising ("Daily Worker")

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums have been paid to the "Daily Worker" newspaper for Government advertising during the last six months of 1948.

Sir. S. Cripps: £1,942, including the commission to the agents.

Mr. Blackburn: While congratulating the Chancellor on reducing the amount of money the Government are paying to the "Daily Worker," may I suggest that this sum should cease forthwith, both on the moral ground that we should not pay money to a totalitarian newspaper, and, secondly, on the practical ground that it is silly to pay money to a newspaper which attacks the Government's policy and sponsors irresponsible doctrines? May I very respectfully ask the Chancellor if he will give a ruling on this, and whether he will reconsider this matter, because I believe that there are many people who feel strongly that it is morally wrong to support with Government money a newspaper that believes in the policy of the secret police?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not think we can take into account the morals of newspapers. It might be very difficult to find anywhere for advertisements at all.

Mr. Churchill: Is not a definite line to be drawn between allowing, in a free and tolerant community, all kinds of expression of opinion, and actually taking, in order to sustain totalitarian productions, the money which Parliament votes?

Sir S. Cripps: This is not in order to sustain anybody. It is in order to get publicity which is desired for particular purposes by the Government.

Mr. Churchill: Supposing the Fascist organisation of Sir Oswald Mosley were able to run a newspaper, would the Government advertise in that paper, paying them £1,000 a year?

Sir S. Cripps: That would depend on the purpose for which they were advertising; it might be desirable and it might not.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that nothing that is printed in a newspaper, or the character of a newspaper, would in any way prevent the Government subsidising it by using it as a vehicle of advertisement.

Sir S. Cripps: We do not regard it as subsidy. We regard it as paying for a certain value. I think that it would be highly undesirable if any Government of

a particular political colour were to say that they refused to spend money in newspapers of another political colour.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the reference made by the Leader of the Opposition to the character of the "Daily Worker," may I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the "Daily Worker" is a clean, hard-hitting paper, and that all it advocates is that the whole resources of the country should belong to the workers and all the power should belong to the workers, and the other side should be abolished.

Mr. David Renton: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that the effect of such Government propaganda as is put forward in this way in the "Daily Worker" is entirely counteracted by the anti-Government and anti-British policy of that paper, and would it, therefore, not be better to withdraw altogether the financial support which they are giving to the paper?

Sir S. Cripps: That is a matter for people who are expert in dealing with publicity, and if they think that they get value out of a certain type of advertisement, I do not think that it should be stopped for political reasons.

Mr. Piratin: If there is one case that can be made out by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) is it not the case of the "Daily Graphic" to which the Minister of Health drew attention the other day?

Mr. Blackburn: In view of the grave Issues which are affected, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

CEYLON (GIFT OF MACE AND SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Major Milner): The House will recollect that on 13th December, on a Motion made by the Leader of the House, leave of absence was given to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Pembroke (Major Lloyd George), the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and myself to present, on behalf of the House, a Mace and


Speaker's Chair to the House of Representatives of Ceylon. I have now to report that the delegation, which was accompanied by the Clerk-Assistant and the Secretary to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, have carried out the very agreeable duty entrusted to them by this House.
My colleagues and I proceeded to Ceylon in an aeroplane very kindly placed at our disposal by the Prime Minister. We were met by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Leader of the House and other Ministers and were the guests of the Government of Ceylon during our stay. The delegation had the opportunity of making a partial but very informative and interesting tour of the Island. They were most hospitably entertained and cannot speak too highly of the kindness and courtesy with which they were everywhere received.
The presentation of the Mace and Chair took place on 11th January when your delegation were admitted to the Bar of the House of Representatives and, with appropriate ceremony, I had the honour of making the actual presentation on behalf of this House. The Chair and Mace were greatly admired and most kindly and, indeed, enthusiastically received, and, on the Motion of the Leader of the House, a Resolution of Thanks was passed of which I hold the official copy, duly certified by the Clerk of the House of Representatives. The Resolution is in the following terms:
That this House accepts with thanks and appreciation the gift of a Speaker's Chair and a Mace from the Commons House of Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a token of friendship and good will on the part of the British House of Commons and

people towards the House of Representatives and people of Ceylon."

I hope, Mr. Speaker, you will think it right to give instructions for the Resolution to appear in the Journal.

An uncorrected copy of the House of Representatives HANSARD for 11th January is being placed in the Library for the convenience of Members who wish to read the speeches delivered on the occasion of the presentation.

Mr. Speaker, your delegation are grateful to the House for giving them leave to make this presentation which will, we feel confident, strengthen the very cordial relations which already exist between the United Kingdom and Ceylon and the respective Parliaments and peoples.

May I add a tribute, on my own account, to my colleagues on the delegation who worked so very happily together throughout a somewhat strenuous time.

Mr. Churchill: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman is speaking for the whole House in what he has said. We are very glad that his visit was so successful, and consider that he and his colleagues—our colleagues—who travelled on this mission and who were so cordially and kindly received have rendered a service not only to the House, but to wider circles.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 268; Noes, 113.

Division No. 42.]
AYES
[3.37 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Carmichael, James


Albu, A. H.
Benson, G.
Castle, Mrs. B A


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Beswick, F.
Champion, A. J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bing, G. H. C
Chetwynd, G. R


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Binns, J
Cluse, W. S


Alpass, J. H.
Blackburn, A. R
Cobb, F. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Blenkinsop, A.
Cocks, F. S


Attewell, H. C.
Blyton, W. R.
Coldrick, W.


Austin, H. Lewis
Bottomley, A. G.
Collick, P


Awbery, S S.
Bowden, Flg. Offr, H. W
Collindridge, F.


Ayles, W H
Bowen, R.
Colman, Miss G. M


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L' pl Exch'ge)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G


Bacon, Miss A
Bramall, E. A.
Corlett, Dr. J


Balfour, A
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Cove, W. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Barstow, P. G.
Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Daines, P.


Barton, C.
Burden, T. W.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Battley, J. R.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)


Bechervaise, A. E
Byers, Frank
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)




Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Price, M. Philips


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Jenkins, R. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)
Pryde, D. J.


Deer, G.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Randall, H. E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Keenan, W.
Ranger, J.


Delargy, H. J
Kenyon, C.
Rees-Williams, D.R.


Dobbie, W.
King, E. M.
Reeves, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Reid, T (Swindon)


Driberg, T E. N
Kinley, J.
Rhodes H.


Dumpleton, C. W
Kirby, B. V
Richards, R.


Dye, S.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon O
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Ede, Rt Hon. J. C
Lang, G.
Robens, A.


Edelman, M.
Lavers, S
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C (Bedwellty)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J J
Rogers, G. H. R.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Lee, F (Hulme)
Royle, C


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Leslie, J R.
Scollan, T.


Edwards, W. J (Whitechapel)
Levy, B. W
Scott-Elliott, W


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lewis, T (Southampton)
Segal, Dr. S.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lipson D. L.
Sharp, Granville


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Shurmer, P.


Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)
Logan, D G
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L


Ewart, R.
Longden, F.
Silverman, S. S (Nelson)


Fairhurst, F
Lyne, A. W
Skinnard, F. W


Farthing, W J.
McAdam, W
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Fernyhough, E
McGhee, H G
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Field, Capt W. J
McGovern, J
Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)


Follick, M.
Mack, J. D
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Forman, J. C.
McKay, J (Wallsend)
Snow, J. W


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S
Sparks, J. A


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Stamford, W


Gallacher, W
McLeavy, F
Steele, T


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Stewart, Michael (Futham, E.)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Stubbs, A. E.


Gibbins, J
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Symonds, A. L.


Glanville J. E. (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Gooch, E. G.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gordon-Walker, P. C
Marquand, H A.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Granville, E (Eye)
Medland, H. M
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Mellish, R. J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Grenfell, D. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L
Thurtle, Ernest


Grey, C. F
Mikardo, Ian
Tiffany, S.


Grierson, E
Monslow, W.
Timmons, J


Griffiths, D, (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H B
Titterington, M. F.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)
Morley, R.
Tolley, L.


Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Morris, P (Swansea, W.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Gunter, R. J.
Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Usborne, Henry


Guy, W. H.
Mort, D. L
Viant, S. P.


Hale, Leslie
Moyle, A.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Nally, W
Watkins, T. E


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Naylor, T. E.
Watson, W. M


Hardman, D. R.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Hardy, E. A
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Haworth, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, G. H.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Herbison, Miss M
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Hicks, G.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Hobson, C. R.
Parker, J.
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parkin, B T.
Williams, R. W (Wigan)


Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)
Paton, Mrs. F (Rushcliffe)
Willis, E.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J (Norwich)
Willis, Mrs. E. A


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pearson, A
Wise, Major F. J


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Peart, T. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Hynd, J. B (Attercliffe)
Piratin, P.
Woods, G. S.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Yates, V. F.


Janner, B.
Popplewell, E
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Jay, D P. T.
Porter, E (Warrington)



Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Bower, N.
Cooper-Key, E. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Boyd-Carpenter, J A.
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon H. F. C


Astor, Hon. M.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E


Baldwin, A. E.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crowder, Capt. John E


Barlow, Sir J
Bullock, Capt. M.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Beechman, N. A.
Butcher, H. W.
Davidson, Viscountess


Birch, Nigel
Carson, E.
De la Bère, R


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Challen, C.
Digby, S. W.


Bossom, A. C.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Dodds-Parker, A D.







Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robinson, Roland


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Low, A. R. W.
Ropner, Col. L


Elliot, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon Walter
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Erroll, F. J
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Fox, Sir G.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Scott, Lord W


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McFarlane, C. S
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Galbraith, T G D (Hillhead)
McKie, J H. (Galloway)
Smithers, Sir W.


Glyn, Sir R.
Maclean, F. H R. (Lancaster)
Snadden, W M.


Gomme-Duncan, Col A
MacLeod, J
Spearman, A C. M.


Gridley, Sir A
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O


Grimston, R V.
Manningham-Buller, R E
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Hannon, Sir P (Moseley)
Marlowe, A A H.
Studholme, H. G


Harden, J R E
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Teeling, William


Hare, Hon. J. H (Woodbridge)
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Thorneycroft, G. E P. (Monmouth)


Harris, F W. (Croydon, N.)
Mellor, Sir J
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A V
Molson, A H E.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F


Haughton, S. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E
Touche, G C.


Head, Brig. A H
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Turton R. H.


Headlam, Lieut.-Cot. Rt. Hon Sir C
Nicholson, G.
Vane, W M F


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nutting, Anthony
Watt, Sir G S. Harvie


Hollis, M C.
Odey, G W.
White, Sir D (Fareham)


Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J
Osborne, C.
Williams, C (Torquay)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh W)
Peake, Rt Hon. O
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Pickthorn, K.
York, C.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W
Ponsonby, Col C. E.
Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick)


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Prior-Palmer, Brig O



Lambert, Hon G.
Raikes. H. V.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ramsay, Maj. S
Major Conant and


Legge-Beurke, Maj, E A H
Renton. D
Colonel Wheatley


Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY [MONEY] (No. 2)

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to wireless telegraphy, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by any advisory committee established under that Act, to such extent as may be determined by the Postmaster-General with the consent of the Treasury, including such sums as may be so determined in respect of the expenses of the members of any such committee.

Orders of the Day — WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Ordered:
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 7, page 7, line 26, line 27, and line 28; Clause 10, page 9, line 22, line 24 and line 38 and page 10, line 7, line 8, line 9 and line 11; Clause 11, page 10, line 14; Clause 12, page 12, line 21; Clause 13, page 13, line 4 and line 5; Clause 14, page 15, line 17; of the new Clause (Enforcement of regulations as to sales, etc., by manufacturers and others); and of the new Schedule (Procedure in Relation to Suspension and Revocation of Authorities to Wireless Personnel) standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Wilfred Paling."—[Mr. Wilfred Paling.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 7.—(Powers of Postmaster-General as to wireless personnel.)

3.48 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): I beg to move, in page 7, line 26, to leave out "may at any time revoke," and to insert:
if it appears to him that there are sufficient grounds so to do, may at any time suspend.

The Chairman: Perhaps it would meet the convenience of the Committee if we discussed the three proposed Amendments to this Clause at the same time.

Mr. Paling: That would be convenient to me. These three Amendments relate to the proposed new Schedule. Certain alterations have to be made in Clause 7,

and these three Amendments effect the necessary alterations. I am not quite sure whether we can discuss them together with the Schedule.

The Chairman: I am, of course, in the hands of the Committee, but if that is convenient I am agreeable.

Mr. Grimston: It seems to me that it would be convenient to discuss these Amendments and the proposed new Schedule together, because they all hang together.

Mr. Paling: In Committee hon. Members opposite raised the question of the revocation of a licence given to a wireless operator. In the Bill the Postmaster-General has powers to issue certificates of authority to wireless operators, and in certain circumstances it may be necessary to revoke such certificates or to take them away from the wireless operators. It was pointed out that to take such certificates away from an operator was a very serious thing indeed as it affected his livelihood. An Amendment was put down in order to try to deal with it by hon. Members opposite, but it was not well worded and did not achieve the object in view. I then promised to bring in a new Amendment at a later stage. That Amendment is embodied in this new Schedule.
The Amendment proposes to set up an advisory committee of three people—the chairman, a representative of the person concerned and a representative of the employers. In a case like that the Postmaster-General will suspend the certificate for the time being, and will inform the person whose certificate is suspended that he has a right to put his case before this advisory committee. In some cases it may be difficult to let the person know of his right, and we shall have to adopt ways and means of letting him know about this right so that he shall not forfeit it because he does not know about it. The Committee will report to the Postmaster-General. It is then for the Postmaster-General to act on the report or not as he thinks fit. But this safeguard is given to the man that his case will be considered impartially by fully qualified people. I think we have met the desires of the Opposition under this new Schedule.

Mr. Grimston: Before I say anything might I seek your assistance, Major Milner? I have an Amendment down to


the Schedule, and I wonder if you can tell me at what stage of our proceedings it would be proper to call it, seeing we are discussing all these Amendments on the Schedule together.

The Chairman: I understood that the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment was going to be raised on the Report stage. If not it will be perfectly in order when we get to the Schedule to put the Amendment then. I will see that that is done.

Mr. Grimston: I understand from that that we shall have to go back on the recommittal again.
As the Postmaster-General has said, this new Schedule and the Amendments meet the point which we put on the Committee stage. There are one or two questions I should like to ask the Postmaster-General before we part from the Schedule. I purposely shall not say anything about my Amendment to it until we come to it later. The Postmaster-General said that there might be certain cases where he would not be able to reach the holder of a licence. That to us seems rather odd. I am not quarrelling with the fact that he is trying to reach people he does not know, but the Post Office must know the people to whom these certificates have been issued. As a matter of interest, we should like to know what sort of case he has in mind.
The other question I should like to put arises on the phrase in paragraph 2—
within such time and in such manner as may be specified in the notice.
Will the right hon. Gentleman say what sort of time he has in mind for a person to give notice of appeal to a tribunal? That also is a matter of interest, about which I should like to have some information. Otherwise, apart from the point which I shall raise later on the Amendment and which to us is of some substance, this new Schedule appears to be right in the circumstances, and I am obliged to the Postmaster-General for meeting us.

Mr. Charles Williams: I should like to support my hon. Friend. I did not have the privilege of being on the Committee which dealt with this Bill, and naturally I am not as fully acquainted with it as he is. I feel that taking these three Amendments together places me in a little difficulty if I have to explain to

someone in the future on what grounds his licence is revoked and how he may make an appeal against his suspension. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some explanation if he will be kind enough to do so. If anyone comes to me to know if he has sufficient grounds for appeal I shall be able to explain to him, provided the right hon. Gentleman gives me a more detailed explanation now, the exact position, rather than trouble the right hon. Gentleman with letters on this point, though naturally he would give me as courteous a reply as he will now give me in the Committee.
For how long will these suspensions take place? I understand that in all probability they will take place as long as the inquiry takes, which in some cases may be a considerable time. The Committee as a whole would like some further explanation on this subject, because it is rather complicated. I see a look of extreme worry passing over the faces of one or two supporters of the Postmaster-General, and obviously they are as anxious as I am to have a further explanation.

Mr. Paling: With regard to the first question which has been put, some of the people referred to may be deserters from their ships or they may be in China, Japan or anywhere in the four corners of the earth. It might take us a long time to reach such persons to let them know. Time would have to be given accordingly. If the man were in this country the thing could be done in a few days, but because he was away it would take longer. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked a question on the first Amendment as to why the licence is revoked. A licence is granted by the Postmaster-General to wireless operators who are doing a very important job. It may be that such a person has deserted his ship. That is rather a serious thing for a man in that position to do, and because of that the Postmaster-General might have to look into the question of continuing the licence or not. There may be a score of reasons for the Postmaster-General to look into the question whether the licence should be continued or not.

Mr. C. Williams: In other words, in future the Post Office will look at anything of this sort with a kindly eye rather


than with the idea of suspending the licence, and will give the individual every chance should he suffer hardship under the system. I might add that the right hon. Gentleman is really exercising his personal kindness.

Mr. Paling: I do not think the Postmaster-General would want to revoke a person's certificate merely for the sake of doing so. In any case, the person would have had to do something serious before the step was taken. If the step is taken, the man is given the opportunity of putting his case before the committee.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Postmaster-General's last statement fills me with apprehension. These are certificates granted for competence by the Postmaster-General. Does the Postmaster-General now say that he takes away a certificate of competence because a man may have deserted his ship somewhere? If so, that appears to be an unexpected punishment in no way affecting the man's competence. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that has ever happened or whether this is to be a new method——

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Is not that essentially a matter which ought to be within the discretion of the Postmaster-General? It is, of course, true that the discretion must be carefully and properly exercised, but ought it not properly to reside there?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It would be very wrong of a man to desert his ship but that would not be likely to affect his competence as a wireless operator. Why should the right hon. Gentleman usurp a power to punish an individual in this way for an action of that sort for which he will be punished in the ordinary way if he is caught? Does the Postmaster-General really deprive people of certificates of competence, which they acquired as the result of examinations, because they have done something for which they can be punished either under the Merchant Shipping Act or in the courts of this country? The right hon. Gentleman should tell us more about it.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to talk about service on people in China or Japan. I see that the new Schedule provides that the Postmaster-General

shall take such steps as appear to him to be reasonable in the circumstances to bring to the notice of the individual, by advertisement or otherwise, the fact of his suspension. What does he propose to do in the instance he has given? Does he intend to advertise in Chinese or Japanese newspapers? It is a farcical illustration and illustrates the undesirability of the Postmaster-General seeking to add to the punishments which a man who deserts may suffer if apprehended, by taking away from him his certificate of competence when his competence as a wireless operator may be in no way affected by his conduct in the other respects. The right hon. Gentleman ought to explain to us in a little greater detail the practice of the Post Office in this matter.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I cannot think that the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. ManninghamBuller) is serious. This is machinery which is most carefully designed—it is obvious in every line and paragraph—to protect wireless personnel. It gives the Advisory Committee powers of revision and of considering whether the action which the Postmaster-General has taken in the first place is proper or not, and that Advisory Committee and the further machinery which is provided, enable a course to be taken which will both investigate the matters at issue and protect the personnel concerned. It is suggested, and it seemed a strange argument coming from the hon. and learned Member, that the decision which the Postmaster-General makes, in exercising a discretion under this new Clause, should, somehow or other, be nullified or held up pending reconsideration by the Advisory Committee. That cannot be accepted as a serious proposition.
The proper way for these things to be done is for the responsible Minister to look at all the facts judicially and not to come to a decision until he is abundantly satisfied that the withdrawal of the authority is the proper and final thing to do. If the person affected thinks the Postmaster-General is wrong, he puts this machinery into operation and gets such redress as he would in all the circumstances be entitled to. What could be more careful and proper than that? What complaint can the personnel have?


What complaint can the Opposition have? I should like the Opposition Front Bench to say what they would do if they were in authority and responsible for this matter and whether they would deviate by one iota from the principle of the machinery under the Schedule.

Mr. McKie: I suppose the Postmaster-General would consider himself fortunate in having had the assistance of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) who went into considerable detail. I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman very carefully but he leaves me, and, I should imagine, other hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee, as unconvinced as before about what we may call the indiscretion of the Postmaster-General. The hon. and learned Gentleman was careful to point out at the end that in certain circumstances the position regarding withdrawal of competence certificates might be as the Postmaster-General suggested. His challenge to the Opposition as to what they would do if they were in authority, in no way meets the case. I will go further. I am glad to see the hon. and learned Gentleman assenting.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: No.

Mr. McKie: The hon. and learned Member has completely begged the question. Whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may say, before we agree to these Amendments we ought to have a little more elucidation of this very important point. It is a point of great substance which has emerged from the right hon. Gentleman's indiscretion—if we may so term it—in explaining the Amendment.
No one on this side of the Committee—I should be loth to suggest anyone on the other side of the Committee either—would willingly be a party to penalising this very excellent class of persons as they may be penalised if the case is as the Postmaster-General has outlined it. I should have thought that we would have had a chorus of disapproval from the Socialist back benches about the point which the right hon. Gentleman made. In particular, I should have thought that my right hon. Friend—if he will allow me to call him that—the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood)—would have had something to say. He would certainly have done so in the old days

when he was sitting on these benches. There has not been even a cheep from him or any protest whatsoever from the Socialist benches but merely a lame kind of apologia which the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester felt constrained to make on behalf of his chief because nobody else would come to the rescue.
Nobody can accuse us of trying in any way to exaggerate the importance of what the Postmaster-General said. If we investigated the matter I suppose that most of us would have one or two constituents or friends and relatives who might come under the kind of penalties which the Postmaster-General has suggested. The right hon. Gentleman ought to say something further and endeavour to allay our fears. If he is unable to do so, the Assistant Postmaster-General might be able to say something if not altogether to remove our fears, at any rate to give further enlightenment on a point which ought to be elucidated. The Minister should not merely satisfy the Committee but satisfy the people who may in future be penalised, and their friends and relatives and the public, who will be astonished when they read tomorrow morning the kind of construction the Postmaster-General has put on these Amendments.

Mr. Skinnard: I am a little puzzled to see exactly where the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) finds difficulty, in view of certain precedents in connection with at least one other Ministry. In effect, the Postmaster-General through his Department acts as an examining body for a job of great importance to the lives of the people. The analogy is the old time examination for teachers by the Board of Education. The actual qualification of the teacher was a certificate nominally issued by a Minister, and in order to protect the young people who came under the care of an unworthy teacher, it was the practice—which was never challenged by the Opposition when they were in power—to deprive the teacher of his means of livelihood by withholding or cancelling his certificate if good and sufficient reasons were shown.
As I read Subsection (3) of Clause 7 the power is that which must be exercised by any examining body which is also concerned with the welfare of the general


public vis-à-vis the work of the people to whom they have issued certificates. I myself, representing schoolmasters, had to appeal on a good many occasions to a colleague of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry when he was President of the Board of Education, but we never disputed his power to take away the teaching right exercised through the certificate. Indeed, it is a normal provision of any examining body which is also a professional body. In this case the profession concerned exercises its powers, and quite rightly, since it is used on His Majesty's ships, in the Merchant Marine, and so on, through a highly regarded certificate which is not only a certificate of competence but is also to a certain degree a certificate of character. In the instance given of the desertion of a ship by an officer, it might easily be adjudged to be a breach of discipline in an officer which could not be condoned, and he might utilise his qualifications to get into another ship. For that reason, since there are analogies in the powers exercised by at least one other Ministry, I fail to see where the difficulty arises.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Like some of my hon. Friends, I was not on the Committee on this Bill and have only had an opportunity of listening to this discussion, but I join with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in deploring the attitude which the Postmaster-General has taken up this afternoon. How dare he penalise a man under this Bill for activities or for deficiencies which are outside the purpose of the Bill? If a man commits some offence and goes to, say, China, that is a matter for him and for the courts of that country, but it is not for the Postmaster-General to deprive him of a licence, or to put up a tribunal which has the power of depriving him of a licence originally given for competence in his trade.
If a man does not conform to the regulations laid down in the first six Clauses of this Bill, it is competent for the Postmaster-General to revoke his licence or, as my hon. Friends suggested in the Committee Stage, there should be another safeguard introduced so that a tribunal can express an opinion whether the licence should be revoked, but only for a contravention of the regulations under this

Bill, not for some other activity if a man deserts a ship while at sea, the laws of the sea prevail and another authority is involved, but it is not for the Postmaster-General to use the machinery of this Bill to deprive a man of his technical position and his prospects of livelihood.
4.15 p.m.
There may be all sorts of reasons why a man is away from his normal job, either permanently or for a time, and some of those may be good reasons which, if there were time and the man were present, he could prove either to the satisfaction of the Postmaster-General or the tribunal. I think we on this side of the Committee are justified in voting against this provision, if that is indeed the intention of the Postmaster-General, and he owes us a further explanation of the point raised.

Mr. Paling: The question is rather one of a revocation of the authority to operate a wireless set than a revocation of his certificate of competence. Of course great care will be taken in every case before this happens. The number of cases that arise now is small, but they happen, and one has to have regard to the fact that in some of these cases, on ships, the wireless operators are doing an important job in which often the safety of life is concerned. That being so, it is the duty of the Postmaster-General to see that all precautions are taken. If damage or casualties resulted, the Postmaster-General could be blamed because he ought to have done something which he had not done or because a person who was in charge ought not to have been in charge. Then we should be attacked by the Opposition. It is merely from that point of view that we are anxious to safeguard his position.
I agree that it is serious to take away the authority of a man to operate a wireless set, and we have agreed that it is serious by virtue of the fact that we have brought in the new Schedule today giving him the opportunity of appealing to some body other than the Postmaster-General who has the power to revoke his authority. I am rather surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should be finding these difficulties now. It may be that the illustration of a deserter was not as good as one could wish, but that is the trouble if one picks out an individual case—it can always be looked at from another point of view.


However, it is right for the Postmaster-General to ask for this authority to revoke in certain cases, and also that the man should have the right of appeal to the authority which we propose to set up.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not think anyone disputes that the Postmaster-General should have that right and power. Everyone agrees that people holding those authorities occupy responsible positions. This discussion would not have continued at length but for what the right hon. Gentleman said, which has created in my mind a considerable amount of alarm which was not in the least allayed by what the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) said. Either the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear what I said, or he did not hear what the Postmaster-General said, because these Amendments have been tabled to meet points raised from this side of the Committee. We are not, contrary to what the hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to think, in any way opposed to the creation of this form of appellate tribunal.
The only reason I rose at an earlier stage was because of the alarming statements made by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the exercise of his power for revoking an authority merely because, perhaps, somebody had deserted his ship. That is piling one punishment on top of another and it may not follow, in the particular circumstances of the case, that a man who is punished for desertion should be further punished by the revocation of this authority. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered me on that or said whether any such authorities have in the past been revoked on that account.
The right hon. Gentleman has really only himself to blame for the course this discussion has taken, as, I think, he himself indicated, by referring to the danger of giving illustrations. But can he give at least this assurance: that no revocation of authority will take place merely because of the commission of an offence of one kind or another unless the nature of that offence clearly reveals unfitness to continue holding that authority.

Mr. Paling: I think that is the whole principle of this matter of revocation, which I tried to make clear in my last statement.

Mr. C. Williams: May I ask the Postmaster-General a question? We had just now a speech from the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) which seemed as though it might have been made from an official brief by the Government. If that is so, why is the hon. and learned Member occupying his present seat? It is rather important that we should know, especially in dealing with a Measure of this nature, whether his pronouncement was one of Government policy or merely something from a back bencher.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I understand that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) alleges that I had some official document in front of me. That is absolutely inaccurate.

Mr. Williams: That was not my meaning. The hon. and learned Member seemed to be speaking officially. Was he or was he not? If he was speaking purely as a back bench Member we know where we are, but if he was speaking as a Government Member very much more force should he attached to what he said in the interpretation of the law.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 7, line 27, at end, insert:
' with a view to the revocation thereot, and where he so suspends an authority, the provisions of the Schedule to this Act (Procedure in Relation to Suspension and Revocation of Authorities to Wireless Personnel) shall have effect.
Line 28, leave out from "any," to end of line, and insert:
 authority granted under subsection (2) of this section has ceased to be in force or has been suspended."—[Mr. Paling.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended. stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: I wonder whether we might now have an answer from the Government as to what is the official legal position? Is it such as we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) or as the Postmaster-General gave it? It is only fair that we should know whether a certain speech is of the real intentions of the Government or whether it is only that of an ordinary Member. I hope


we can be given an answer about this extraordinary position.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 10.—(Regulations as to radiation of electro-magnetic energy, etc.)

The Chairman: The next Amendments on the Order Pape are all concerned with the new Clause—(Enforcement of regulations as to sales, etc., by manufacturers and others)—and can, if it meets the convenience of the Committee, be taken together.

Mr. Grimston: I think the Amendments to page 9, lines 22 and 24, relate to the new Clause, but I am not clear about the Amendment to line 38. Perhaps that should be taken separately. I think the four Amendments to page 10 are also concerned with the new Clause.

The Chairman: Then it would appear to meet the convenience of the Committee to discuss together the first two Amendments to page 9 and the four Amendments to page 10.

Mr. Paling: I beg to move, in page 9, line 22, after "regulations," to insert: for both or either of the following purposes, that is to say—
(a) for.
This Amendment and the others we are now discussing relate to the new Clause dealing with manufacturers. In the Committee stage one of the chief criticisms against the Bill was the lack of powers to deal with interference at its source. It was said that we were taking powers to deal with the user, the unfortunate housewife, but were not taking powers to deal with the matter at its source; that if we kept on dealing with the user and not tackling the source of the trouble the complaint would go on interminably. It was pointed out that the question of dealing with the manufacturer had been discussed and considered on many occasions, that it was very difficult to include such provision in a Bill and that it was thought that this matter might be dealt with better by way of voluntary agreement with manufacturers than by writing into the Bill a Clause for us to compel manufacturers

to take the steps which had been suggested.
The criticisms persisted, however, and after much discussion I promised to do what I could to introduce a Clause dealing with this problem. As a consequence the various Clauses preceding the new Clause require to be altered to fit in with it. I am in some difficulty, however, to know whether in discussing these Amendments we are now discussing the important Clause itself or the alterations which need to be made to the preceding Clauses.

Mr. Grimston: Am I correct, Mr. Chairman, in assuming that the New Clause will be moved later on?

The Chairman: These Amendments to Clause 10 are preliminary, I understand, to the new Clause, and may, therefore, be discussed together. I have no objection to the new Clause being discussed at the same time if that will suit the convenience of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has moved the Amendment to page 9, line 22, and is discussing also, I understand, the following Amendment to line 24.

Mr. Grimston: That is quite agreeable to us. In the circumstances, as we are taking the whole matter together, perhaps the Postmaster-General would like to say something about the new Clause.

Mr. Paling: I was asked to introduce the new Clause in order to deal with the question of manufacturers and the source of interference. It is difficult Go deal with this problem at its source for the question is related also to the matter of export. The question of export is, in fact, dealt with in the Amendment to line 24. A long procedure would be necessary to develop and make the man, kinds of apparatus free of interference so that they would comply with the regulations. Many manufacturers are concerned and quite a long time might elapse whilst they are experimenting, improving and designing before they could produce apparatus which is really free of interference. That was one reason why we did not wish to bring in a Clause of this kind, but would rather deal with it by voluntary arrangement. But, because the Committee wanted to do it, we decided to put in the Clause.
4.30 p.m.
Subsection (1) of the new Clause is the operative part. The other part of the new Clause deals with the question of making regulations and also gives the manufacturer the same right as the user to go to a tribunal if a notice has been served on him prohibiting him from selling certain manufactured articles because they are not interference free. In regard to regulations, prohibitions and safeguards the proposed new Clause is on all fours with the Clause which safeguards the user. I hope hon. Members opposite will see fit to accept the new Clause. We have done our best to give as much safeguard as possible to manufacturers and to make the Clause as workable as possible.

Mr. Grimston: The Postmaster-General has given us a somewhat disjointed presentation of the proposed new Clause and the Amendments which are being considered with it, but, as he said, it meets a demand which was made from all sides of the Committee. As the Bill was first introduced it appeared that the Postmaster-General intended to deal with the problem by going for the consumer and not taking steps to see that apparatus did not leave the manufacturers' hands in such a manner as to cause interference. From all sides the opinion was expressed that the problem should be attacked from the manufacturers' end. Since then our contention has been supported by a circular from the Radio Industry Council in which they say
Very often the interference can be minimised by modifications in the design of electrical apparatus or by the fitting of suppressors in the course of manufacture.
I hope the Postmaster-General will explore the problem on those lines. The proposed new Clause will give him sanction to do that although I hope it will not have to be used in that sense, particularly having regard to the export trade and the difficulties of manufacture.
I think the Committee would do well to note that, although the Clause has been introduced, the Postmaster-General is still to have an alternative, a purely permissive power. By the Amendments it will be seen that he can introduce regulations and issue orders to those who sell an apparatus or to consumers. There is nothing in the Bill as it will leave us to

prevent the Postmaster-General still pursuing the problem entirely from the consumer's angle. I hope before attacking the matter from the consumer end, he will consider the possibility of a solution from the manufacturing end.
In the second Amendment the word "person" is used and the same word occurs in the proposed new Clause. I take it that the word "person" is not used in the lay sense, but in the legal sense, which embraces companies and firms.

Mr. Paling: indicated assent.

Mr. Grimston: I am glad to be clear on that point. This Clause gives rise to certain Amendments, which we had hoped to discuss later, but, subject to that, we think the Postmaster-General has met us by introducing these Amendments and introducing this new Clause. We did not ask for more than a permissive Clause, but the whole matter will depend on how the Postmaster-General and his Department work the new Clause. We shall very carefully watch the regulations and we express the hope that the manufacturers' end of the problem will be attacked first. Because the Postmaster-General has responded to the wishes of the Committee, we welcome the new Clause.

Mr. Turton: I wish to register a word of dismay at the very unenthusiastic way in which the Postmaster-General discussed the new Clause. It is a very valuable new Clause, which will tremendously reduce the cost to the housewife. The Postmaster-General can use the Clause as a threat to manufacturers and by that persuasion save housewives a great deal of expense. It was said in Committee that it would cost something like 30s. to suppress an electric iron, but if the work is done during the assembly and manufacture of the iron it will cost only a shilling or two. Similarly, in regard to a motorcar during manufacture it is only a question of coppers, whereas when the motorcar is complete a considerable sum would be needed to fit a suppressor. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his attitude to the child he has adopted. I like the child, but if the Postmaster-General brings it up in a half-hearted way, it will not have the success desired for it.

Mr. Tolley: I take exactly the opposite view from that of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I think my right hon. Friend has shown a great deal of enthusiasm in introducing the proposed new Clause and I should like to congratulate him accordingly. I think this is being done from the right angle. It would be creating great hardship on people who have endeavoured in every way to perfect their apparatus and spent money in so doing if the manufacture of particular articles was wrong and he was placed at a disadvantage without knowing the facts. I think this one of the most important Clauses in the Bill and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on it.

Mr. Hollis: We should be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman if he stated exactly on whom the obligation falls in Clause 10 under the new paragraph (b). In addition to the precise meaning of the word "person" I should like to know the meaning of the word "assembles" in the last line of the second Amendment we are considering. Under this Clause the obligation is being put upon the manufacturer and the obligation is not, I take it, being put on a person who merely hires out the instruments and who has nothing to do with its manufacture. I understand that to be why the words from "any person" onwards have been inserted. As for the word "assembles" I should like to know what is its definition. In some people's use of the word it would embrace people who in the course of their business tinker about with wireless sets and who might be said to assemble them but who are in no sense manufacturers of them. Such people are not, in a position to comply with the requirements which this Clause is placing upon manufacturers. Are these people to be forbidden from tinkering about with these wireless sets or is there a technical definition of the word "assemble," whereby tinkering is not regarded as assembling?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not intend to delay the Committee or to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I should like to ask the Postmaster-General to what extent he has had consultations with industrial producers of electrical appliances before introducing this Clause. It may be that what this Clause is intended to do, which this Committee and the public

welcome, will be expensive to some of these manufacturers. It is all very well to talk about electric irons and carpet sweepers which may involve simple additions to a production line. Producers of electrical apparatus on a large scale, for example expensive medical apparatus and even motor cars, and possibly power stations, may be involved in the expenditure of large sums. When the Postmaster-General takes powers, as he does under this Clause, to serve a notice on a person who is manufacturing, assembling or importing such apparatus, I should like to know whether that also includes wireless reception sets. We do not want to deal harshly with the manufacturer of apparatus which generates these impulses while letting off lightly the manufacturers of apparatus which receives the impulses.
The complaints with which this Bill is concerned will be those affecting wireless and television reception. I am told that it is perfectly easy to fit suppressors to motor car radio sets. To what extent will it be possible to fit radio and television sets for the home in the same way? I want the Postmaster-General to say that he will deal not only with the manufacturers of apparatus which generate these impulses—carpet sweepers, irons, X-ray apparatus, electrical apparatus of that kind—but also with the manufacturers of wireless and television sets, so that the whole financial burden, which may possibly be immense, is not put on the shoulders of those who manufacture the bigger types of apparatus.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: The question of the receiving sets is rather different from that of an iron which is causing interference. Perhaps I might explain the matter by stating the procedure. The Post Office receives from a person owning a radio set a complaint, on the form issued for that purpose, about interference. Two people from the Post Office go to the house of that person and first see whether the interference is due to the set itself. If that is so our people tell the householder what is wrong and, if they can, advise them what to do to put the matter right. That is one side of the question. There is no compulsion in that respect.
4.45 p.m.
The next question is in regard to the manufacturer's side. It may even be that


some of the newer apparatus being sold today, such as irons, is more liable to interfere with radio sets than some of the older apparatus, because it is fitted with a thermostat. It is the intention that the manufacturers, by whatever means they work out, shall fit a suppressor or in some way ensure that the goods they sell are interference-free to the user, with the hope that in time the trouble from which the user suffers will be cut out because the trouble will be dealt with at the source.
With regard to assemblers it may be that a person or company which sells these irons or any of the apparatus which is liable to cause interference, buys a lot of parts and assembles them. I take it that under the regulations such a person or company will have to make sure that the whole article which is assembled and offered for sale is interference-free according to the regulations which will be made. Consultations with manufacturers have taken place. In all this matter the Post Office people concerned have been in the closest consultation with the Institution of Electrical Engineers, who are to play a part in .providing a panel of people from whom I shall make a selection. Manufacturers are largely represented in that Institution, so that manufacturers have been taken into the closest consultation in the framing of this particular Clause.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I do not wish to weary the Committee but I do not think that the Postmaster-General has grasped my point. May I give an illustration? Suppose there is a home with a television set in it close to Battersea power station. It would be intolerable to insist upon the power station fitting suppressors to their dynamos at a cost say of £100,000, in order that that television set should be absolutely free from interference. I was suggesting that the Postmaster-General must not only go to the manufacturers of electrical apparatus which generates these impulses which interfere with radio and television reception; he must also go to the manufacturers of radio and television equipment and say, "What can you do to fit suppressors to your sets?" Can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in using the machinery of this Clause to prohibit the manufacture, assembly or importation of apparatus which has an

adverse effect on reception he will also deal not only with the manufacturers of apparatus but also with manufacturers of receiving sets?

Mr. Paling: This discussion is becoming rather technical. The ordinary radio and television set does not emit frequencies of the kind which cause interference in reception. The set receives the interference and the people who make the apparatus which emits the frequencies or otherwise causes the interference are the people primarily concerned.
Let me put another point. The noble Lord put a question about a person with a television receiver who lived in the neighbourhood of Battersea power station. He asked whether it would be fair to require Battersea power station to spend thousands of pounds in order to stop interference with that set. If the noble Lord puts it in that way my answer would be that it would not. If it was the case that the power station was served with a notice to stop its interference in the case of a single receiver those concerned would take advantage of the right given to them to go to a tribunal and let the tribunal decide who was right. If any power station or apparatus anywhere were emitting impulses in such a way as to cause interference in one television receiver, it would do so at the same time in hundreds or in thousands of others. In that case it might be possible to compel people who are in a big way to do something about it. The safeguard is that they have the right to take their case to a specially qualified tribunal who know the technical side of the matter and are able to judge a case upon its merits.

Mr. Grimston: The point which my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) has raised is one on which we had some discussion during the Committee stage. The Minister has not yet cleared up the question which my noble Friend has asked, which is, assuming some device is invented which can suppress interference when' it reaches the receiver does the Clause give the Minister power to make it obligatory on manufacturers of receiving apparatus to adopt such a device rather than that the Minister should go to all the people who are producing Hoovers, electric irons, etc.? Will the Minister please answer the question? Would he


also answer the question about the definition of the word "person" in the Clause?

Mr. Paling: I am informed that the word "person" means also company. It is difficult to answer the other question because I am told that it is well-nigh impossible to do what the noble Lord is supposing. Even if it were possible, I think the answer to the question would be "No."

Mr. Grimston: I cannot accept an answer which says, "I am informed that the suggestion is technically impossible." About 30 years ago, one would have been told that it was technically impossible to produce television. It may become technically possible to do what we are now supposing, and to blot out interference at the receiving end. Do I take it that the Clause would not give the Minister power to impose suppressors upon those who manufacture receivers? I should really like a clear answer upon that point.

Mr. Keenan: Certain points are not clear to me now, even after listening to the discussion in the Committee. I should like to know from the Postmaster-General whether it is possible for him to insist not merely that manufacturers of receiving sets should make sure that the sets interfere with no one else but to insist that suppressors should be put upon apparatus which is already in existence?
I think we are not looking at this matter from quite the right angle. Is it the intention of the Bill that individual householders who have receiving sets, or electrical apparatus which are causing interference with television or with aeroplane radio and the rest of it, should pay for the suppressors to be fitted to those appliances? We have been told that the cost will be anything from 1s. 6d. to 30s. If so, it is time for somebody to say that the supply of suppressors should be free to such individuals. The possessor of a receiving set or of domestic appliances should not have to spend 30s. or more because of interference being caused to somebody who has a new television set. If the television owner wants proper reception he should pay for the fitting of suppressors to

apparatus that was in existence before his television set.

Mr. E. P. Smith: The Postmaster-General has said that there is no such thing as an infallible suppressor, but it is quite possible that one might be invented. If one were invented, is not the Postmaster-General depriving himself of the power to compel people to use apparatus which will be interference free, by the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman is giving to the Clause?

Mr. Paling: I am informed that a suppressor can be fitted to a radio set now but that it will not only stop the frequencies which are causing the interference but will stop the programme as well. It will stop the set altogether.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What about car radio?

Mr. Paling: Cars are a different proposition? A suppressor can be fitted to a car at very little expense. The car is the instrument which is sending out the frequencies while the radio set is the instrument which receives them. This trouble must be dealt with at the point from which the interference comes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) raised a particular point. When irons, immersion heaters and a number of instruments used in the ordinary house send out interference, our people go down and track the trouble to its source and then suggest to the housewife what can be done about it. In most cases a suppressor can be fixed at very small expense. In 97 per cent. of the cases that is done. I do not know of any way to transfer the expense of doing it to anybody else. We intend that the people who have the instrument which is causing interference shall take steps to fit the suppressors.

Mr. Grimston: The Minister has not yet answered the question about his powers under the Clause.

Mrs. Middleton: I wish to thank the Postmaster-General for having met the point which I put to him during the Committee stage. I am sure that housewives will be grateful to him for seeing that apparatus that they may purchase is fitted with suppressors before they buy it. In thanking him, I should like to put a further point to him. Will


the Clause give the Minister power to see that suppressors needed on apparatus at present in existence will be on the market at the lowest possible cost so as to ensure that housewives are not involved in very considerable expense in getting suppressors attached to such apparatus?

Mr. Paling: The answer is "Yes."

Mr. Grimston: I am sorry to persist, but the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he has not specifically answered the question put by my noble Friend and reiterated by myself. It is whether the wording of the Clause gives him power to make regulations that suppressors upon receiving apparatus shall be obligatory, should such be invented?

Mr. Paling: The answer is "No." I hope that I have given some of the reasons why.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is a deficiency in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 24, at end, insert:
(b) for prescribing the requirements to be complied with in the case of any apparatus to which this section applies if the apparatus is to be sold otherwise than for export, or offered or advertised for sale otherwise than for export, or let on hire or offered or advertised for letting on hire, by any person who in the course of business manufactures, assembles or imports such apparatus."—[Mr. Paling.]

Amendment proposed: In page 9, line 38, after "and," to insert:
in so tar as appears to the Postmaster-General necessary or expedient in the case of the regulations in question."—[Mr. Paling.]

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: May we have an explanation of this Amendment? I do not think it is one of those Amendments relating to the new Clause which we have been discussing

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): We have to make the manufacturer's Clause so that it applies universally in relation to the article which he is manufacturing. A person, on the other hand, who uses an apparatus may cause an interference in a certain district and not in another, and we have to introduce this drafting Amendment, because of this differentiation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 7, after "unlawful," insert "for any person."

In line 8, after "applies," insert:
or to sell any such apparatus or offer or advertise it for sale or let it on hire or offer or advertise it for letting on hire.

In line 9, leave out "such regulations." and insert:
regulations made under this section.'

In line 11, at the end, add:
or under the section of this Act (Enforcement of regulations as to sales, etc., by manufacturers and others), as the case may be."—[Mr. Paling.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 11.—(Enforcement of regulation under last preceding section.)

Mr. Paling: I beg to move, in page 10, line 14, to leave out the second "under," and to insert:
for the purpose specified in paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) of.
This is a drafting Amendment to limit the power of the Postmaster-General under Clause 11 to the enforcement of the users regulations.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 12.—(Penalty for deliberate interference.)

Amendment made: In page 12, line 21, leave out "the last preceding section" and insert:
Section eleven or the Section (Enforcement of regulations as to sales, etc., by manufacturers and others) of this Act."—[Mr. Paling.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE I3.—(Penalties and legal proceedings.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 4. after "use," insert:
or in the causing or permitting of the use, or in the selling, offering or advertising for sale, letting on hire or offering or advertising for letting on hire."—[Mr. Paling.]

Amendment proposed: In page 13. line 5, leave out:
under Section eleven of this Act."—[Mr. Paling.]

Mr. Grimston: I do not follow why these words are left out. Perhaps the


Postmaster-General could explain. Is it purely a drafting matter, or is there some other reason?

Mr. Paling: The Amendment is consequential on the insertion of the new manufacturer's Clause. There is no specific reference either to Section 11 or the new Clause, since the whole offence is qualified by the words:
if the offence is under Part II of this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. McKie: May I ask a question of the Postmaster-General with regard to Subsection (4)? That Subsection lays down:
No criminal proceedings for an offence under this Act shall be instituted in England, Wales or Northern Ireland except with the consent of the Postmaster-General.
Why is there no mention of Scotland in the subsection? I hope that it is because the Postmaster-General with the advice which has been given him and from his own knowledge, feels that it is unnecessary to ask the House or this Committee to agree to the mention of Scotland, because he feels that there will be very little risk indeed of any offence under this Act being committed in Scotland——

Colonel Dower: I cannot accept the view that offences are likely to take place more often south of the Border.

Mr. McKie: I do not wish hon. Members to think for one moment that I was casting any aspersion of that kind. I made no reference at all to the possibility of there being many cases in England, Wales or Northern Ireland in which the Postmaster-General would have to institute proceedings——

Colonel Dower: I accept that withdrawal.

Mr. McKie: I certainly made no such imputation at all. I was merely asking in the first instance why there was no mention of Scotland. I think that is a point of substance. I was about to express the hope—and this is where I was interrupted by my hon. and gallant Friend—that it might be because the

Postmaster-General anticipated, either from his own personal experience or from information supplied to him, that there would be hardly any likelihood of his having to institute proceedings north of the Border.
I think however that the Committee would be well advised before agreeing to this Clause as amended being put into the Bill, to ask why there is no mention of Scotland. It would have been tidier if there had been a general reference to the two Kingdoms, to Northern Ireland and to the Principality of Wales. Then the right hon. Gentleman, who has shown throughout the proceedings an almost incessant desire to arm himself with plenipotentiary powers, would have been armed against the possibility of the commission of offences in Scotland under this Act. Although I know that in Subsection (7) there is given a detailed explanation of what might have to be done by the Lord Advocate in Scotland if there are civil proceedings by the Crown for an injunction, that is one specific point which I do not think covers Subsection (4). I see that the Assistant Postmaster-General is indicating that he desires to reply, and I hope that he will be able to satisfy me on the matter.

Mr. Hobson: The point is that in Scotland, under Scottish law, the Lord Advocate is responsible.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 14.—(Entry and search of premises, etc.)

Amendment made: In page 15, line 17, after "eleven" insert
or the section (Enforcement of regulations as to sales, etc., by manufacturers and others).

Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Enforcement of regulations as to sales, etc., by manufacturers and others.)

(1) If the Postmaster-General is of opinion n that any apparatus does not comply with the requirements applicable to it under regulations made for the purpose specified in paragraph (b) of Subsection (1) of Section ten of this Act, he may serve on any person who has manufactured, assembled or imported the apparatus in the course of business a notice in writing prohibiting him from selling the apparatus,


otherwise than for export, or offering or advertising it for sale, otherwise than for export, or letting it on hire or offering or advertising it for letting on hire.
(2) Where a notice has been served under Subsection (1) of this Section, the person on whom the notice has been served may, by notice in writing served on the Postmaster-General, require the Postmaster-General to refer the matter to the appeal tribunal and the Postmaster-General, unless he revokes the notice, shall refer the matter to the tribunal accordingly.
(3) On any such reference, the tribunal shall hear the Postmaster-General and the person at whose instance the reference was made and any other person appearing to them to be interested who desires to be heard, and, if they are satisfied hat the apparatus in question complies with the requirements applicable to it under the regulations, shall direct the Postmaster-General to revoke the notice, and he shall revoke it accordingly:

Provided that the making by the tribunal of a direction under this Subsection shall not, where the apparatus is subsequently altered, prevent the Postmaster-General from serving a fresh notice under Subsection (1) of this Section with respect to the apparatus and the refusal by the tribunal to make a direction under this Subsection shall not, where the apparatus is subsequently altered, prevent the Postmaster-General from revoking the notice or the person on Whom the notice was served from giving a further notice under Subsection (2) of this Section.

(4) The provisions of Subsection (6) of Section eleven of this Act shall apply in relation to any reference under this Section as they apply in relation to any reference under Subsection (3) of that Section.

(5) Where a notice has been served under Subsection (1) of this Section, the person on whom the notice has been served shall, if he contravenes the provisions of the notice without the notice having been previously revoked by the Postmaster-General, be guilty of an offence under this Act.—[Mr. Paling.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Procedure in Relation to Suspension and Revocation of Authorities to Wireless Personnel.)

1. The Postmaster General shall, on suspending the authority, serve on the person to whom it was issued a notice informing him of the suspension, of the grounds thereof and of his rights under the subsequent provisions of this Schedule, and further informing him that if he does not avail himself of those rights the Postmaster General may revoke the authority:

Provided that where it appears to the Postmaster General that it is not reasonably practicable to serve the notice on the said person, the Postmaster General, in lieu of serving the notice on him, shall take such steps, by advertisement or otherwise, to bring the notice to his knowledge as appear to the Postmaster General to be reasonable in the circumstances.

2.—(1) If, within such time and in such manner as may be specified in the notice, the person to whom the authority was issued requests that the question whether the authority should be revoked or the suspension thereof continued or terminated should be referred to an advisory committee, the Postmaster General, unless he terminates the suspension, shall refer that question to an advisory committee accordingly.

(2) Every such advisory committee shall consist of three persons appointed by the Postmaster General, of whom one shall be an independent chairman selected by the Postmaster General and two shall be persons nominated respectively by such body or bodies representing employers of wireless operators and such association or associations representing wireless operators as seem to the Postmaster General to be appropriate for the purpose.

(3) Where a question is referred to an advisory committee under this paragraph, the committee shall inquire into the matter, shall consider any representations made by the person to whom the authority was issued, and shall then make a report to the Postmaster General stating the facts as found by them and the action which, in their opinion, ought to be taken as respects the revocation of the authority or the continuation or termination of the suspension thereof, and the Postmaster General shall consider the report.

(4) After considering the report of the advisory committee or, as the case may be, on the expiration of the time referred to in subparagraph (1) of this paragraph without the person to whom the authority was issued having required in the manner therein referred to that the question should be referred to an advisory committee, the Postmaster General shall, as he thinks fit, either revoke the authority, or terminate the suspension thereof, or continue the suspension thereof for such period as he thinks fit.

3. Any expenses incurred by an advisory committee under this Schedule, to such extent as may be determined by the Postmaster General with the consent of the Treasury, including such sums in respect of the expenses of the members of the committee as may he so determined, shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament.—[Mr. Paling.]

Brought up, and read the First and Second time.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed now Schedule, at the end of paragraph 2 (4) to insert:
and if he revokes the authority or continues the suspension he shall on demand by the person to whom the notice was issued, communicate to him the report of the Advisory Committee.
The new Schedule provides for the setting up of a tribunal before whom anyone who has had his licence suspended can ask that the matter should be placed. That tribunal must report to the Postmaster-General. Paragraph (4) says:


After considering the report of the advisory committee . . the Postmaster-General shall, as he thinks fit, either revoke the authority, or terminate the suspension thereof, or continue the suspension thereof for such period as he thinks fit.
The point is that the Postmaster-General may receive a report from this advisory committee, but there is absolutely nothing mandatory in the Bill about how he is to act on that report. I agree that the Postmaster-General issues these certificaes of competence, and it must be in his discretion whether he takes one away; but he has conceded the point that there should be an appeal, which we think is right. Having done that, he takes power in the new Schedule to make it clear that he need take no notice whatever of what the advisory committee says unless he thinks fit.
In a case where the Postmaster-General departs from the advice he may get from the committee and revokes a licence or does not remove the suspension, this Amendment would make it obligatory for the appellant to have the right to see the report of the Committee. That is only fair on the appellant. I can think of no reason why he so should not have that right. There may be cases where perhaps the Postmaster-General has made a mistake which is pointed out by the advisory committee on appeal, and he revokes a suspension and the matter ends satisfactorily. But there may be cases where there is a difference of opinion between the Postmaster-General and the advisory committee. The Postmaster-General will have the last word anyway, but in those cases I maintain that the appellant ought to be allowed to see the report. We do not put in the hands of the committee the power of saying what the Postmaster-General shall do as is done in another part of the Bill in the case of an appeal to a tribunal on a notice with regard to apparatus. We do not do that, but we seek to make it obligatory on the Postmaster-General to show the report to the appellant if it is demanded. In view of the fact that the Postmaster-General is retaining entire discretion on the question of revocation or not, that right should be allowed to the appellant. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to grant it.

Mr. Hobson: The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has put forward a most appealing case which it is

difficult to resist. Nevertheless, after giving most careful consideration to the matter, we are unable to accept the Amendment. We feel that if it was accepted it may be an embarrassment to the Committee in so far as they would be most careful what was stated in their report. They may not speak with the same frankness if it was known that the report would be made public. We think that there would be a tendency for them to be restricted. Then there is a third consideration which in certain circumstances may be paramount. There are matters of security which might arise in a case of this sort of revocation.
5.15 p.m.
It is for those reasons that we are unable to agree to the Amendment. We have gone a long way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman. There is no question of "hiring and firing" at will. A properly constituted advisory committee will be appointed as a result of the requests of hon. Members opposite with which we are in complete and perfect agreement. We feel that the interests of the appellant can be well safeguarded by this independent committee which will consist of an independent chairman, a representative, say, of the shipowners, and a representative of the radio officers' guild or association. I regret very much, particularly because of the logic with which the hon. Member stated the case, that my right hon. Friend is unable to accept the Amendment.

Colonel Haughton: I for one am very sorry indeed that the Minister has not accepted this Amendment. It appears to me that he is putting the embarrassment of members of the tribunal before justice to the men from whom the authority to work has been taken away. There is an added reason why persons in that position should be told quite plainly what is the finding of the tribunal. In certain circumstances —and in life I have seen this happen—where a person knows where he has gone wrong——

Mr. Hobson: The appellant will be told of the findings of the committee.

Colonel Haughton: I am aware of that. The mere fact that his authority is taken away is confirmation of a finding, but the reason why it was taken away is most important. What I was about to


say was that there are cases in which if the person knows where he has erred he has a chance to get back again. As far as I know, the taking away of the authority is not for all time. It might be restored to him. I support the Amendment most sincerely.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I hesitate to intervene because, as the Postmaster-General knows, I am a member of the Advisory Council of the Post Office. I have the greatest admiration for the efficiency with which the whole staff of the Post Office discharge their obligations to the public. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Antrim (Colonel Haughton) that this matter should receive reconsideration. There is a good sound reason why the person whose means of livelihood is taken away should have a statement of the reasons why. I would be slow to suggest anything that would not be perfectly fair to both sides. I cannot imagine an independent tribunal being embarrassed by the knowledge that the reason for depriving a man of his certificate and taking away his means of living —that is what it amounts to—is to be included in a report to the Postmaster-General. I do not think that would influence them in arriving at a correct decision on the merits of the case.
I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General if he can introduce some modification in the rigidity of this provision which would enable a measure of fair play to be shown so that a man may realise that the reason underlying the loss of his certificate is sound and wholesome. It is a serious matter to deprive a man of his means of living. I think that the Postmaster-General himself, with the experience of his long public career, would always defend the advisability of dealing with a case of this kind on the ground of justice.

Mr. Marlowe: I think the answer which the Assistant Postmaster-General gave on this matter was very unsatisfactory. He put it under three heads. Firstly, he said that it would make the advisory panel very careful. I hope they are going to be careful in any event, and I hope it is not suggested that if the report is not published they will be any less careful. I imagine that they will be just as careful whether the report is

published or not. Therefore, that is not a very good reason, because they will be careful anyhow. His second reason was that it would be restrictive. I do not quite understand what he means by that, but, surely, where a man's livelihood is being affected in this way, the matter would receive proper and careful consideration, which should not be affected by any consideration whether the reasons are to be made available to the person holding the authority or not.
The third reason was based on the question of security. if there is anything in that point, and I doubt whether there is, I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman has been affected by the advice so often given and rather overdone on this question of security. He could quite easily safeguard it by a suitable phrase if he accepts the principle of the Amendment. He can protect the position by saying that those reasons shall not be given where the Postmaster-General certifies that, in the interests of security, it is undesirable. He could easily protect himself on that point.
I do not think it is sufficiently realised that, as the matter stands, it would be possible for this advisory committee to overrule the Postmaster-General and for the Postmaster-General, nevertheless, to ignore their advice and for the holder of the authority never to know whether his case has been allowed or not. That is the position at the moment. The Postmaster-General revokes the authority, the matter goes before the committee, which advises the Postmaster-General that, in their view, he was wrong, yet it will be competent for the Postmaster-General to ignore the advice given by the committee, and for the person whose case had been upheld by the committee never to know that he had been vindicated by them and entitled to have his authority back. That is a most unsatisfactory position, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will reexamine the matter.

Mr. Tolley: If I thought that the Amendment would achieve anything of the nature or character suggested, I would support it, but, even assuming that the person who is affected by the decision is allowed to see the report, I think it will in no way affect the decision as it stands. It will merely give him a right to see the report. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General if it is not also laid down


conclusively already that, while the person concerned is not allowed to see the full report in detail, at least the findings are conveyed to him, giving the reasons why the suspension is carried into effect? If that is so, the person concerned who finds himself in difficulty has a safeguard in that direction, although I want to be certain on that point.
I hope the Minister will give me an assurance, with which I should be satisfied, that the people affected by the decision shall at least be given the opportunity to put things right, but I want to be assured first by the Minister that the persons concerned shall be told the reasons why the findings in the report are against them, even if they are not able to see the full report.

Mr. Grimston: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Member opposite, who seeks the same assurance as we do. although we want it included in the Bill. A man may have his certificate suspended and appeal to the Postmaster-General for the matter to go before the tribunal. The matter then goes before the tribunal, and it may well be that the tribunal advises the Postmaster-General that he has wrongly suspended the man's certificate. Under this Clause, the Postmaster-General may take no notice whatever, or, at any rate, he need not act on the advice of the tribunal. There is nothing in the Bill compelling him to tell the man whether the advisory committee found in his favour or against him. We do not ask for the whole report to be published if questions of security arise, but the findings of the tribunal should at least be communicated to the appellant, particularly in cases where the Postmaster-General may adhere to his decision in spite of contrary advice from the tribunal. Such cases may not often occur, but they may occur.
The hon. Member who spoke last suggested that the man will not be any better off, but I am not so sure about that. It will be open for him to go to his Member of Parliament, and for that Member to put a Question to the Postmaster-General asking why he had not followed the advice of the tribunal. In the end, the individual concerned would have the right of bringing any injustice before the House, and that right

would be preserved. The wording of the Amendment may not meet the point, and it may be that the findings of the advisory committee should be substituted, but we do want something in the Bill to make it obligatory on the Postmaster-General to advise the appellant how the committee has reported. I think we have general agreement on the principle behind the Amendment, and the matter resolves itself into a question of what is the best way of putting it into the Bill.

Mr. Hobson: It is very difficult to take up the negative attitude which my right hon. Friend and I are adopting on this Amendment. Both of us, I suppose, were brought up in the school where "hiring and firing" at will without reason was the order of the day. We have departed from that now, and we have now heard from the other side, with a little amazement but with great approval, a defence of the right of a person who is sacked to be given the reasons, and we realise to what extent we have now progressed. Nevertheless, we cannot accept the Amendment.
Let me answer the point made in detail. The person concerned is first made aware why he has had his licence revoked. He then appeals, and, while it is true that there is no provision in the Bill specifically stating that the findings must be made known to the individual, I assure the Committee that, in practice, those findings will be made known to him. A further point which has not been mentioned is that he will have the right to take a legal representative to the advisory committee. I think that we have given all the safeguards that we reasonably could give to the individual concerned, and I regret that my right hon. Friend does not see his way to approve of the Amendment.

Mr. George Thomas: Will my hon. Friend explain to the Committee how he can give an assurance that, in practice, this information will be given, while, for some reason, it must not be done in writing? I must confess that I am rather confused on that point.

Mr. Tolley: Could I make an appeal to the Minister? Even though he is not prepared to make any concrete offer at this stage, will he take the matter back for reconsideration and see if he can find


words which would meet the wishes of the Committee?

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Viant: There does not appear to be a great deal of difference between the two sides of the Committee. The difficulty that the Postmaster-General contemplates is that he should be expected to show the report of the tribunal to the person concerned. I think he is reluctant to accept that proposal. The hon. Member for Westbury has somewhat changed the complexion of the Amendment in the sense that he is prepared to have it altered in such a way as to ask that the findings of the tribunal shall be conveyed to the person concerned. That is quite a different thing. I am somewhat in sympathy with the Postmaster-General's objections to showing the report of the tribunal to the person concerned. I do not think that would be wise. There have been occasions, of course, when Members of Parliament have been enabled to see the report of a certain committee. That has been done in order to ensure, and to persuade the Member of Parliament who raised the matter in this House, that justice has been done. There is not a great deal of difference between any of the hon. Members who have been speaking this afternoon. If the Postmaster-General will be prepared to compromise and to agree that the findings of the tribunal should be conveyed to the person concerned, I think that would meet the case.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I wish to raise two points. The Assistant Postmaster-General referred to a legal representative. Is representation restricted to a legal representative, or does it include other accredited agents?

Mr. Hobson: Or a friend.

Mr. Wallace: The second point is, could not my right hon. Friend consider the question of intimating to the House that regulations in a suitable form will be drafted so that there can be some assurance that the point raised by my hon. Friend will be met?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber when this Amendment was moved. It was a matter which had already caught my eye, and 1 was very anxious to be present in order to oppose it, and to explain my reason

for so doing. It is an extraordinary Amendment, and I challenge the mover, or anyone else, to find a similar provision in any Statute. I put the handicap as high as that. There are quite a number of instances where there have been reports of this kind. I think it will be found that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act is a Measure which comes into this category. Hon. Members will recollect that within the lifetime of the present Parliament this topic has been raised before for the same purpose and with the same result as, I am sure, it is going to have this afternoon. It is most inadvisable that a report of this kind should be submitted or divulged to anyone other than the Minister.

Mr. Marlowe: Mr. Marlowe rose——

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The hon. and learned Member can speak when I have finished. Here is a matter which involves the Minister exercising his discretion. The matter is then sent to this particular body provided by the Bill to be investigated. It may be that the matter has elements of the greatest secrecy and of the greatest national importance or at least contain something which should not be disclosed to a private individual. The suggestion that such a document should be open, without any restriction or reservation of any kind, to anyone other than the Minister is therefore something which is not only surprising, but in my view unique. Therefore, in my opinion the Minister is perfectly justified in resisting it. The reason why the position has been left as it is, is because it follows a long line of traditional practice. To depart from that line would not only be wrong, but might be open to very great objection and even risk.

Mr. Marlowe: As the hon. and learned Member said, he was not present when the Amendment was moved, and, therefore, did not hear the subsequent discussion. I would point out to him that it has been generally accepted by the Committee that there may be a case for not disclosing the report, and we were discussing the matter in the spirit of whether or not the person affected should be given the findings. I do not think the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware of that. We want to know what is the case against letting the person concerned have


the evidence, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has not addressed himself to that point.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I readily concede that that modifies the impact of this proposal in the Amendment. At the same time, any such provision would have to be very heavily hedged around, because it might have the effect of divulging just as much as the report itself. If it is merely a matter of giving the person the findings without the prejudice which I have in mind, and which might accrue from a disclosure of the report, then I do not think there could be any objection to it. At the same time, I think it ought to be left to the Minister to decide, in the proper exercise of his discretion, whether the divulgence of such findings would really disclose the contents of the report.

Sir William Darling: My view is that if the tribunal's findings are not to be communicated to the person concerned, the tribunal might as well not exist. There seems to be a tendency on the part of Ministers to transfer what is their proper responsibility to the tribunal. Hon. Members will remember that we had a similar discussion last evening. It seems to me that if Ministers in a nationalised State are going to pass on their proper responsibilities to tribunals or committees of one kind or another, the status of a Minister is going to be substantially reduced. I think the argument is irresistible.
If the Postmaster-General decides to pass on his responsibility to a tribunal, he must necessarily divulge the findings of that tribunal to the person concerned. I should prefer that he carried out his own duties, and personally decided whether or not a person should be suspended. He would then open himself to the attack—and the proper attack—of hon. Members of this House. But when he stands behind a tribunal and the proceedings are not divulged, not only is the House of Commons weakened, but the individual who has been suspended may be denied justice. If the Minister does not accept this Amendment, he should dispense with the tribunal. How many of these tribunals are we going to have?

Mr. Hobson: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. If he was present when the Financial Resolution (No. 2) was before the House, he will appreciate that the sum involved was £250. That is a very small amount. If he will look up the record of revocations in the last few years, he will find that it is infinitesimal.

Sir W. Darling: I remember many occasions in the past when estimates have been exceeded. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the amount is only going to be in the nature of £250, then it seems to me that he would be well advised to accept my advice and dispense with the tribunal altogether. If the Postmaster-General is unable to suspend a delinquent of this character without the expense and trouble of an advisory committee, then it seems to me that he is not equal to his responsibilities. This is either an important matter, in which case the Amendment should be accepted, or it is an unimportant matter. I am inclined to think it is an unimportant matter, and that the Minister should accept responsibility and dispense with the tribunal.

Mr. Keenan: It seems to me that the argument on this Amendment is an extension of an argument we had earlier this afternoon. The Committee should be told to what particular grade this matter applies. Does it extend beyond the wireless operator? If it only applies to him, then I can understand why the estimate was no larger than that stated by the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Hobson: It is the person who operates the wireless set; whether he is a first-class operator or a second-class operator I do not know. It will be those who have a certificate of competency from my right hon. Friend for the purpose of operating a wireless set.

Mr. Keenan: There is a little confusion about the extent of its operation and the people whom it will affect. I think the Debate has been concerned with the question of the dismissal of individuals not necessarily for wireless offences—the question of desertion of ship and that kind of thing. It was suggested that a man might be penalised, as a wireless operator, by having his licence revoked when the offence was not necessarily in connection with his profession at all. I could not altogether agree with the Opposition


when they were arguing on this point in an earlier Clause, because it seems to me that the same sort of thing could apply to an officer of a ship with a Board of Trade certificate. He might be in the same position. I want to know this: when an offence is committed, does the individual concerned receive two penalties? As well as losing the opportunity to continue his livelihood, is he also penalised in a civil court for an offence which eventually is the cause of his losing his employment? That is what has been discussed and I do not see how we get out of it except by the suggestion which has been made that the individual is entitled at any rate to the findings, if not to the report.

Mr. G. Thomas: My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General has spoken in reasonable terms tonight, but when he points out that very few appeals will be made to the tribunal, I think he should be reminded that it is not of the least importance to this House whether there are 10,000 appeals to the tribunal or whether there is one appeal. Justice for one individual is all-important to this House. Injustice to any person who has been tried or who has appealed to a tribunal and is refused the findings cannot conceivably be defended, particularly since so many of my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends are accustomed, as trade unionists, to ask that whenever there has been a hearing, at least the findings shall be made known to the individual. We are not being unreasonable in asking my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend, who is so silent beside him, to give us at least this assurance—that when we reach the Report Stage they will look at the matter again to see if they can meet the wishes of the House.

Sir W. Darling: Why not now?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that we have a progressive Government. We should have a little co-operation from him. I believe my hon. Friend cannot justify his attitude on any single ground. He has told us that, in practice, the findings of this tribunal will be submitted to the wireless operator or whoever it is who has appeared before the tribunal. If that is the intention, I ask him again what difficulty is there in inserting that in the Bill? I am thirsting for information on this point because I cannot find any adequate

reason for my hon. Friend's attitude and he has not given one.

Mr. Grimston: We seem to have reached a point which those who have heard the whole of this discussion will appreciate. I think everyone is in favour of the intention of the Amendment, that all appellants should be informed of the findings of the tribunal. The Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General has informed us that, in practice, that will be done, without exception. At the same time he has refused to put it into the Bill and has refused to consider any other form of words to be inserted in another place. In the face of that, there is only one thing we can do. We must take the matter to a Division. It is really not good enough simply to have a Ministerial assurance that something will always be done and at the same time to have a refusal to put it in an Act of Parliament. I think that is a matter of principle on which this House should stand. If the right hon Gentleman persists in this attitude we shall have no other alternative but to seek a Division.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: Hon. Members seem to be asking now for something rather different from the words of the Amendment. The Amendment says:
communicate to him the report of the Advisory Committee.

Mr. Grimston: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I said I did not stand on the report. The important thing is the findings, and it is on that basis that we have been discussing the subject for the last half-hour.

Mr. Paling: We have said we have no objection to indicating the findings to the person concerned and how far I am being pressed beyond that I do not know. I do not know what is meant by "the findings." If it is "yes" or "no," that is one thing; but does it mean anything in addition to that? Does it mean reasons in addition? That is my difficulty at the moment. I have listened very carefully to the Debate and there seems to be a fair consensus of opinion that something should be done about it. I shall look at it in view of what has been said.

Mr. G. Thomas: I should like to thank the right hon. Gentleman very much.

Mr. Grimston: We shall not have a chance to discuss this again in this House and, while I am obliged to the Postmaster-General for saying he will look at this again, if he looks at it unsuccessfully there is nothing more we can do about it. Would he give an undertaking that he will definitely find some form of words to cover the intentions of the Amendment? Would he give a pledge that that form of words will be inserted in another place? If he would give an assurance that a form of words to carry out our intentions, which he understands, will be found and will be inserted in another place, I think we should accept that.

Mr. Paling: I promise to put something in.

Mr. Grimston: On the understanding that that something covers the point I have raised, I would be prepared to accept that assurance. In the circumstances, as the Postmaster-General has said that he will find a form of words to meet our purpose, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule added to the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

CLAUSE 2.—(Fees and charges for wire less telegraphy licences.)

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Hobson: I beg to move, in page 2, line 49, at the end, to insert:
 but this proviso shall not apply to licences of any type wholly or mainly intended to meet the needs of persons desiring to use, in a private dwelling-house and without making any charge to other persons, apparatus not designed or adapted for emission (as opposed to reception).
The intention of this Clause is that regulations with regard to the cost of wireless licences shall be laid before the House. They are the broadcast receiving sound licence and the television receiving licences in the home, ships' wireless licences, aircraft wireless licences, police wireless licences, etc. However, there is also another class of licence, to which this proviso applies, because we cannot lay down yet precisely what regulations may be required. For

instance, there is development taking place at the present time in the exhibition of television programmes in cinemas. We cannot be asked to lay down rigid regulations which it would be impracticable to lay down about that. There is nothing sinister in this at all.
There may be other instances. There may be a new firm starting the manufacture of radar equipment, and it may have a vessel at sea, and may wish that the results of the experiments going on in the vessel should be communicated to its headquarters. It may require that for a short period of some months, and may wish for a licence accordingly. In such circumstances it seems to me far better that my right hon. Friend should have carte blanche as far as the cost to be paid by such an undertaking for a licence is concerned. It may be possible, as a result of the development of television relays to cinemas, and possibly from our experience and knowledge, to lay down in the form of regulations precise charges. If that is so my right hon. Friend will do so. From a business and practical point of view I am sure that hon. Members opposite will agree that it is essential that my right hon. Friend should preserve the right to charge a licence in the special circumstances such as I have outlined.

Mr. Grimston: The House will recollect that there was very considerable confusion on the Committee stage about this matter, and I am obliged to the Postmaster-General for putting down an Amendment which, at any rate, takes the domestic user out of the purview of the variable rates of licence. We appreciate that there are these special cases in which it is not possible to set down always exact charges. However, we hope that they will be kept as few as possible, and we shall watch the first regulations very carefully.
There is one thing that, I think, will have to be watched, and that is the Postmaster-General uses these powers here solely on a cost basis, and does riot seek to use these powers to exercise a veto upon the television of some particular thing the Postmaster-General does not like. That is not the purpose of this at all, and I am glad to have the assurance of the Assistant Postmaster-General that that is not the intention. However, I think


it is just as well for the House to bear in mind that the variable powers which may be taken under this type of regulation could be used for selective purposes. by making it quite prohibitive to broadcast some event which the Government in power at the time did not like to televise. So far as the sphere of these variable regulations is reduced to the minimum, we recognise their necessity. The domestic user having been taken out, we are happy to accept the position as it is.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Experimental Licences.)

Mr. Paling: I beg to move, in page 5, line 3, after "if," to insert:
whether before or after the grant or last renewal of the licence.
This Amendment meets a point raised on the Committee stage, when an hon. Member pointed out that our words did not quite make it clear whether a prosecution could take place in certain circumstances. We think that the words that were in the Bill were sufficient, but we propose to insert these extra words to put the matter beyond doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Advisory committee and appeal tribunal.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, after "appointed" to insert "as to half."
This is a manuscript Amendment in place of the one on the paper in line 11 which does not make sense. The next Amendment on the Paper in my name is connected with this one. It is in page 8, line 17, after "Act," insert:
the remainder of the Advisory Committee to be nominated by the Postmaster-General from persons who, in his opinion, represent those who make or use the apparatus likely to be affected by the making of the regulations.
That Amendment is all right and is concerned with the second half of the Advisory committee.
The manuscript Amendment, as can be seen, raises a point similar to—but not the same as—that we raised on Committee stage. We think, particularly in view of the new Clause which has been accepted by the Committee, whereby the Postmaster-General is to make regula-

tions with regard to manufacturers, that they should have some representation on the advisory committee, and that that representation should be in addition to that of the technical experts who will be nominated by the Institution of Electrical Engineers. It is largely for that reason that we have put these Amendments down.
I do not want to go over all the arguments again, but I think that if hon. Members will cast their minds back to the various points that have been raised in connection with manufacturers' problems, they will agree that it will be a good thing to have some other than purely technical advice upon this advisory committee, from whom the Postmaster-General is to draw a good deal of the advice and information upon which he is to base his regulations. It may, indeed, save a great deal of trouble later if the manufacturers have a voice on this committee. For this reason, as well as the last which we advanced on Committee stage, when we thought that it was as well to have a rather broader outlook on the committee than the purely technical one, since these matters touch the public, we think that the committee should be so formed. Having regard to the discussion which has taken place before, I think that this short explanation is all that is necessary now.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Hobson: I think that we have made progress, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) will not mind my saying that there has been an appreciation by the Opposition of the committee which my right hon. Friend is to set up, and which will be a highly technical committee. It may be commissioned to deal with electromagnetic energy from certain articles and machinery that may be a source of interference. It, therefore, has to be a committee of experts. I think that it is a fair analogy to compare it with many of the committees of the British Standards Institution. The question raised by the hon. Member is whether the committee is likely to be balanced. I can assure him that when it comes to the selection of the committee to deal with a specific article


that may cause interference, the members of it will be drawn from those who manufacture the apparatus and from those whose interests are concerned in having no interference arising from that product. That will be the method under which the committee will be chosen.

Mr. Grimston: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that he is giving an undertaking as to what the President of the Institution is going to do. Is that not so?

Mr. Hobson: That is perfectly true, but I think that we can safely assume that where a particular article is being considered as likely to cause interference, the Institution, which has no vested interest in these matters, would take great care to see that on the panel there were representatives of both the user and the manufacturer. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend is unable to accept the terms of the Amendment.

Amendment negatived

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I beg to move in page 8, line 20, to leave out "of legal experience."
This Amendment and the next six Amendments go together, and they are designed to meet a point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) in regard to the wording at present in the Bill where the words of qualification are:
of legal experience.
It was suggested on the Committee stage that these words might include a person who had been disbarred or struck off the roll of solicitors, or who had not yet acquired a legal qualification. We have met that point by putting in the words "barrister or solicitor," or—and this was the case which we wanted to be able to cover if need be—
who has held judicial office.

Sir W. Darling: Advocates?

The Attorney-General: Or advocates.

Mr. Grimston: These are Amendments to meet a pledge which was given on the Committee stage and for which we are much obliged.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

Mr. Paling: I beg to move in page 8, line 40, to leave out from "case," to end of line 41, and to insert:
other than the Postmaster-General request the President of the Institution of Electrical Engineers to appoint either one or two specially qualified.
This and the followng two Amendments go together. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) moved an Amendment on the Committee stage which would have removed what he thought was the power of veto of the Postmaster-General. Certain words were suggested at that time, but they were not quite suitable, and I promised that before the Report stage I would look at this matter again 'to see if I could bring in certain words to remedy the grievance. I think that the hon. Member will agree that these three Amendments carry out my promise. The first Amendment enables specially qualified people to deal with cases which the ordinary tribunal might not deal with, or which the appellant himself may not want them to deal with because he thinks that the question is of such a highly technical nature that people of special qualifications should deal with it.

Mr. Grimston: As the Postmaster-General has said, he is here carrying out a pledge given on the Committee stage that his veto in the appointment of assessors should be removed, and he has gone further than we asked him to go, in as much as the question of the appointment of assessors is not left to the President of the Tribunal, but the appellant himself can demand and shall get the special assessors he requires.

Mr. Hollis: I should like to register my continued puzzlement as to the wording of this Subsection on which I addressed the Committee at an earlier stage. I do not see what is the point of saying
other than the Postmaster-General
when the Postmaster-General is bound, I understand, to be one of the parties.

Mr. Paling: There are two parties—the Postmaster-General and the other party. It was thought that if the other party was not quite satisfied with the nature of the tribunal and wanted another, the Postmaster-General had only to object in order to veto the whole busi-


ness and stop him from getting the specially qualified tribunal which he wanted. These words take out my veto, and if the person concerned wants a specially qualified tribunal he can have it.

Mr. Hollis: I appreciate that perfectly; my objection is merely connected with the puzzle of the English language.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 8, line 44, leave out from "thereof," to end of line, and insert
select and appoint one or, as the case may be, two such assessors to act.

In page 9, line 2, leave out "special," and insert "specially qualified."—[Mr. Paling.]

Mr. Paling: I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, after "fees" to insert "to."
This is a drafting Amendment which replaces a word taken out in error on an Opposition Amendment in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Regulations as to radiation of electro-magnetic energy, etc.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 10, line 5, after "line" to insert:
not in a private dwelling house.
We have put down this Amendment to try and get an explanation on a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who drew attention to the fact that on page 10 there is a reference to apparatus as a term including any form of electric line. We want to know whether that includes a line in a private dwelling house, and whether the Postmaster-General can make regulations regarding the wiring of private dwelling houses. If the right hon. Gentleman has had time to look into this, I should be glad if he could tell us the answer.

Mr. Hollis: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Paling: The answer is: Yes, it could refer to an electric line or an electric cable in a private dwelling house. If a line or a cable in a private dwelling house were in such a condition as to be emitting sparks, which in their

turn caused interference with a wireless receiver, then, if only from the point of view of safety from possible fires resulting from such a broken or defective line, it would be necessary to do something. In the circumstances, if our people went in we might be able to give the householder valuable advice about something which wanted doing in any event, apart from any question of interference.

Amendment negatived

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 10, line 6, at the end to insert:
Provided that. except where safety considerations arise, no such regulation shall apply to any factory, as defined by the Factories Act where such factory was in operation prior to the installation of any wireless telegraphy apparatus, notwithstanding that there is any such apparatus in that factory which might cause interference with wireless telegraphy.
This Amendment is regarded as of some importance by the Federation of British Industries. What is feared is that when these regulations come into force, a factory which is already in existence and has been operating for some time may have to instal such expensive anti-interference devices as to render it almost impossible for that factory to continue to operate, because it will raise the cost of the product so much, or may even mean that the factory will have to move. We think that there should be some safeguard against that sort of thing happening.
Previously this evening it was argued that if the Battersea Power Station interfered with a lot of wirelesses it might have to be moved, or suppressors might have to be installed at enormous cost. That idea was ridiculed. This Amendment would make quite certain that no such ridiculous thing could happen. It is possible that under regulations which may be enforced under this Bill there may be serious inconvenience, not to say loss, imposed on businesses which have been operating for a considerable time.
It is not possible to discuss the question of compensation in any form, because that is outside the terms of the Financial Resolution; but as things stand, a firm could be put to considerable expense, and might even be put out of business without any compensation or redress at all. For those reasons we con-


sider that safeguards should be provided for existing factories which may not be able to suppress interference except at very high cost. Particularly is that necessary when one remembers that what they would be asked to do would be merely to stop interference with an amenity, and not for other reasons. I hope I have made the point clear, and that in the circumstances the Amendment will be accepted.

Colonel Haughton: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am concerned with this, not only from the factory point of view, but also from the point of view of supplying electricity to the factories. In Great Britain the supplies have been nationalised, but in Northern Ireland they are still in the hands of a public utility company. Except on the consideration of saving life, it seems wrong that the Postmaster-General should order changes, which might be very expensive indeed, to the supply lines and electrical installations of factories, or even order that the factories should be eliminated altogether. It is wrong that the whole onus should be put upon the factory or the supplier of electricity to make these changes at their own expense. and that the Postmaster-General should bear none of that responsibility. For that reason I support this Amendment.

Mr. Hollis: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment, because it will merely increase the balance of the Bill in one respect in particular. We are falling into the danger of being almost disproportionate, in that we have set out with the very laudable purpose of freeing from interference people's wireless listening, but sometimes we are in danger of falling into the mistake of talking as if that were quite the most important thing in the world, and that every sort of sacrifice of British tradition and habit should be made in order that people's wireless listening should not be slightly interfered with. This Bill would seem much more balanced if recognition, by acceptance of this Amendment, were given to the fact that while we will take a certain amount of trouble to enable people's wireless listening to be clearer, we do not think that is the sole purpose of human life and that every sacrifice must be made for that purpose.

Sir Peter Bennett: I should like to reinforce what has been said. It is the batting order which concerns me. I have seen industries grow up and develop from small beginnings, without any form of nuisance to those around them. They are now liable to find themselves unintentionally creating a nuisance, for which they are to be penalised. Let me give a hypothetical example.
In my own neighbourhood, in the Midlands, there is to be a new television broadcasting station. My own company has a small factory within a couple of miles of the site. That factory is there because during the war it was established to use the labour of the district. The people are most anxious that it should remain. It is an electrical works which uses electrical testing apparatus. I have not the faintest notion whether that causes interference, but if it does, I imagine we shall be asked to move. No doubt, I shall have to do it on personal grounds, because if any factory in which I am interested interfered with everybody's television, my life would be a burden.
If that factory had to be moved my company would not go "broke" because of the expense. On the other hand, it might easily happen that a small factory on its own, with limited financial resources, would suffer a very grave hardship if it had to stop production and transfer elsewhere. I would not have said anything about this matter, but for the fact that there is not a word in the Clause about compensation. Such firms who are giving work to the people of a district are to be penalised and are not to have any chance of compensation. On those lines I suggest that the whole question should be looked into again.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The more one looks at the Bill the more one is convinced that the most careful administration of its provisions will be needed. I find it very difficult to see any logical grounds at all in the Amendment. First of all, it proposes to differentiate in favour of a particular factory, because it has been in operation prior to the installation of wireless instrument or equipment that might be the cause of the interference. I find it difficult to see that as being a reasonable ground for making a distinction between such a factory and one which was started after this Bill is


passed and then introduces the installation of some wireless implement which may have the result of creating the interference which this Bill is designed to eliminate. If what the Amendment suggests is right, it means that to be really logical we should have to have exempted areas, because if one factory is going to interfere seriously with wireless telegraphy and is not to be eliminated, what is the use of dealing with any of the other factories? They might as well be left there, because there would still be this field of interference from the factory which the Amendment proposes to cover. No purpose would be served in that case in eliminating the other factories.
There is, of course, another aspect of this matter. A nuisance is a nuisance, in whatever form it comes, and if the objective is to get rid of interference of such a substantial nature that it is absolutely essential in the public interest to do so, how can an exception of this kind be made? Either the cause of interference is to he stopped or it is not. If it is to be stopped, then the mere fact that a factory was there before another factory, or the electrical installation causing the trouble, cannot possibly on any grounds of sense affect this particular issue.
Moreover, it is making a rather serious invasion in the law of nuisance. I should have thought it was a very serious thing in a Bill of this kind, apart from the other considerations to which I have alluded, to put a provision into it which would in any way restrict the courts in the exercise of their judicial authority. When it comes to a matter of a public nuisance, the interference envisaged by the Bill, is undoubtedly in that category. The degree, of course, may be of a very great extent. It is impossible by importing language into this Bill to mitigate or quantify the extent or the nature of the interference. The test is—is the interference such that it is proper for the Postmaster-General to interfere in the way he can do by this particular provision as it stands? In all the circumstances, I should have thought it was not only inadvisable but totally illogical to make the alteration which this Amendment is designed to do.

Sir Ian Fraser: The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) raised a much wider point than he

imagined. He gave us the example of his plant, which he says is near the proposed television transmitter in the Midlands. He seemed to have in his mind that because he was near the television transmitter any electrical disturbance which his plant made would vitally affect the transmitter. He is wrong as regards the site of his factory. This serves to illustrate what drastic power the Government are really taking. The point is that the further away a plant is from the television transmitter the more attenuated the television signal will be when it reaches the television receiver and the greater will be the interference.
If, therefore, the plant of the hon. Member were 30 miles away from the television transmitter the same amount of interference from his plant might affect an area of 10 or 20 miles around, whereas if he were near the transmitter the signal would be so much stronger that it would be affected much less. It follows that as soon as television spreads over an area of 40 or 50 miles—the line of sight, more or less—then that area may be vulnerable, and the further away from the transmitter the more vulnerable. Consequently, to be effective, this power will have to be used in the most widespread way and will affect a number of industries.

Sir P. Bennett: If the hon. Gentleman maintains that the plant which is only a couple of miles away will be less dangerous than one 30 miles away, I might say that we have eight factories within a 30 miles radius, so that I am going to get it very badly if that is so.

The Attorney-General: This is a short point and one to which we have given careful thought, but I am afraid that we cannot accept it. The real principle underlying the Amendment is that if something which is objectionable is established in a particular area before other people to whom it is objectionable come along, then under this Amendment it may be permitted to go on for ever, notwithstanding the fact that circumstances have entirely changed the character of the surrounding area and people, perhaps in very large numbers, have come to live in the district and may be incommoded by what is going on. In other words, if this Amendment were


accepted there would be large areas in which ordinary householders would be unable to get proper wireless reception, because they would be areas of permitted and privileged interference. That would be quite contrary to the principle of this Bill, and, indeed, quite contrary to the ordinary principles of law.
6.30 p.m.
When we were discussing this matter at an earlier stage, I said that this question of interference with the reception of wireless broadcasts and television was really a new form of nuisance. To some extent, one has to look at the old principles of the law of nuisance in deciding what it may or may not be reasonable to do in regard to the matter in the Bill. In the ordinary law of nuisance—I think this is right—it has never been part of the principles governing that branch of our jurisprudence that any recognition is given to this kind of prescriptive dog-in-the-manger attitude, and we cannot admit it here. If the apparatus and machinery in a factory, however long it has been in use and however long the factory may have been established, is causing substantial interference to the discomfort of His Majesty's lieges in the neighbourhood, it may be reasonable to require that factory to take the steps which can be taken to put an end to that interference, and to allow His Majesty's lieges to listen to their wireless, if they desire to do so, without undue interference.
It may be reasonable. Whether it is reasonable in the circumstances of a particular case is a matter for which we do not seek to provide by legislation covering all cases, but it will have to be considered by the appeals tribunal in the circumstances of the case. If in a particular case the appeals tribunal found itself confronted with, on the one hand, the old established and very important factory of the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) and, on the other hand, merely one householder whose wireless reception was perhaps a little less than perfect because of the existence of that factory, no doubt the appeals tribunal would say, "This is not a case in which to interfere; it 4s a case where it would be unjustifiable and unreasonable to enforce any regulations against this factory." If, on the other hand, all

round the factory hundreds of thousands of people had their wireless reception gravely interfered with because the occupiers of a factory were neglecting to take measures, which they might quite simply and inexpensively take, to suppress the wireless interference, the tribunal—it would be essentially a matter for the tribunal—would say, "We think the regulations ought to be applied."
As I shall seek to say on the next Amendment, we have sought to provide a most elastic system which can be enforced in a commonsense and just way, and which will not operate to cause difficulty for a factory unless that factory is causing substantial interference to a substantial number of people. In those circumstances, I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.

Sir P. Bennett: Will the tribunal bear in mind the difficulty which would be created if closing a factory meant moving a lot of workpeople? When we close a factory and move it to an area which we are told is more desirable, we have an awful lot of trouble about the labour which is likely to be displaced.

The Attorney-General: I am satisfied that that would certainly be a matter very much in the minds of the tribunal. I am assured—I have no knowledge of it; it is a technical matter—that there could be no question of moving a factory, and that it would merely be a question of installing the technical apparatus —the suppressors—which prevent the electrical interference. That is the problem which will arise in the ordinary course. If it were a question of moving a factory and putting workpeople out of employment, or transferring a large body of workpeople, obviously that would be a major consideration for the tribunal to bear in mind.

Mr. Grimston: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate the fear about the moving of a factory? He says that apparatus may be inexpensively installed to suppress interference, but is he aware that in the case of some machinery it would be a very expensive matter to instal protective apparatus, and in such a case the management might have to say that they could not afford to instal the apparatus because the expense would put them out of the market


and their only alternatives were to close down or to move? It is in that sort of case that apprehension arises that if there is nothing in the Bill, it will be left completely to chance. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in those circumstances, give an undertaking to look at the matter again—I gather that he has looked at it—to see if these fears can be dealt with in some way? I do not think that he has grasped the point about the moving of a factory.

The Attorney-General: I appreciate the point. On the advice I have, I cannot think that it would ever be less expensive to move a factory than to instal the apparatus.

Mr. Grimston: The factory might have to close down.

The Attorney-General: If that situation arose—I am told that it is highly improbable—that would be one of the considerations—I should think, an overwhelming one—in the minds of the tribunal. I hope to persuade the hon. Gentleman when we come to the next Amendment that the tribunal really will discharge a most important function in deciding on the merits of each case, weighing up interference with television or wireless reception and setting against that the interference with the economic life of the country and the employment of labour in the neighbourhood.
Weighing up considerations of that kind, the tribunal will have to decide whether it is reasonable to enforce the regulations against a factory in particular circumstances. In the circumstances which the hon. Member for Edgbaston put to me, it is difficult to conceive that a tribunal could possibly say that it was reasonable to do so. Moreover, there is the additional safeguard that in such a case if that really were the position, the Postmaster-General would probably not take—if he had taken it, it would be open to question in this House—the preliminary step of serving an enforcement notice against that factory.

Colonel Haughton: Colonel Haughton rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman can ask a question, but he has exhausted his right to speak.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 10, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(4) Before any regulations are made under this Act, the Minister or Ministers making the regulations shall publish in the Gazette and in such other manner as he or they may think best adapted for informing persons affected notice of the proposal to make the regulations, and of the place where copies of the draft regulations may be obtained, and of the time (not being less than twenty-eight days) and the manner in which objection may be made to the regulations.
(5) If any objection is duly made and is not withdrawn, the said Minister or Ministers shall, before making the regulations, either cause a public inquiry to be held or afford to any person by whom any objection has been duly made and not withdrawn an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the said Minister or Ministers for the purpose, and shall consider the objection and the report of the person who held the inquiry or the person appointed as aforesaid before making the regulations.
(6) Notice of any such inquiry as aforesaid shall be given in such manner as appears to the said Minister or Ministers to be appropriate for the purpose of informing the persons affected, and the provisions of subsections (2), (3) and (5) of section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act. 1933 (which relate to evidence and costs) shall apply in relation to any such inquiry as if for any reference therein to the Department there were substituted a reference to the said Minister or Ministers.
The Amendment has considerable bearing on the new Clause introduced earlier today whereby the Postmaster-General has taken power to make regulations concerning the manufacture of articles which are likely to interfere. it is very important that the manufacturers should be brought in at an early stage in making the regulations in order to save much trouble afterwards. I want to quote something which the Attorney-General said on the Committee stage. It may be recollected that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) spoke on this matter, and he explained that the appeals tribunal did not come in until after the damage was done, so to speak, and that it was better that the manufacturers should be brought in at an earlier stage in the formative process of the regulations rather than when a regulation has been made and they have contravened it and wish to appeal against it. On that occasion we tried to introduce the special Parliamentary procedure, and in the course of this discussion the Attorney-General said:


We shall certainly give further thought to the matter but it is difficult to find a half-way procedure which is not so cumbrous and dilatory as the special Parliamentary procedure proposed here. We will certainly consider it from the point of view proposed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 659.]
Naturally, we understand that the Attorney-General has given consideration to it, but evidently he has not found a satisfactory halfway house because no Government Amendment has appeared upon the Order Paper. Therefore, we have put down this Amendment as, in our view, a satisfactory halfway house. I will go briefly over its provisions.
Before any regulations are made the Minister must publish in the "Gazette" and in such other manner as he may think fit for the information of persons affected, notice of the proposal to make the regulations. "Persons" here will apply to persons or firms. Secondly, if any objection is made, and is not withdrawn, the Minister shall cause a public inquiry to be held. This is a much less cumbrous procedure than the one we proposed previously, but it will make it obligatory upon the Postmaster-General, before he frames regulations which perhaps will have considerable effect on manufacturing processes and the export trade, to bring in the manufacturers and get their assistance—I am sure he will get it readily —and co-operation in framing regulations which will be reasonable and fair, and will carry out what is intended, without too great an interference and upset of the ordinary processes of manufacture.
Various hon. Members have made remarks about this matter, and it has been pointed out that when one is to interfere with the production line, one has to be careful. It is true that we on this side have asked that the problem shall be attacked in that manner. We do not want it to be done in any high-handed fashion, and we want to give the manufacturer every chance to come in in framing the regulations in order that there is as little interference as possible with production processes. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) reminded the Committee that we must not lose our sense of proportion in these things. It is pleasure with which this Bill is concerned—all these regulations ensure

that the pleasure of people should not be interfered with when they are looking at television or listening to their wireless sets —but we should take every step we can to see that industry and the export trade are not interfered with unduly simply in order that someone may get more enjoyment than he would have otherwise out of a radio set.
Bearing all that in mind, and bearing in mind the pledge given by the Attorney-General that he would see if a halfway house to our previous proposal could be found, I move this Amendment as that halfway house and as a means of bringing in the manufacturers during the framing of the regulations, and not at a later stage when the damage might have been done.

Lord John Hope: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I cannot accept it as a reproach against this Bill that one of its objects, although by no means the sole one, is the promotion and protection of pleasure. I am a great believer in the promotion and protection of pleasure, and we do not always have quite enough of it in these days. His Majesty's present advisers, while they are doing what they can in other fields to restore and build up the economy of the country, try when they can to promote the simple pleasures of the people. I think it is important that, in regard to this great modern invention which brings an extraordinary new pleasure to people who sometimes have very little pleasure in their lives, we should do what we can to see that that pleasure is not interfered with unduly.
None the less, I approached this problem with a great deal of sympathy and we gave further consideration to it after the speech which the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) had addressed to the matter on the Committee stage. Indeed, we gave most careful and sympathetic consideration to the problem when the Bill was drafted and we wondered, as the hon. Member has wondered, whether it would be possible to transpose into this Bill the machinery—which is in fact the machinery in his Amendment—which was embodied in the Radioactive Substances Act. After giving the matter that careful


consideration, we came to the conclusion that it was impracticable and undesirable to take that course, and I hope I shall be able to carry the hon. Member and the House with me in concluding that we were right in that view and that the present provisions of the Bill meet the position which the hon. Member has in mind.
It may well be asked, if there is a provision of this kind in the Radioactive Substances Act, why not reproduce it in this Bill? The House will hardly need to be reminded that the problem dealt with in that Act was of a wholly exceptional nature and had to be dealt with in a wholly exceptional way. The great difficulty there was that it was impossible to find any adequate definition of what were radioactive substances. The result was that the powers which were being given to the Minister by the Bill might have been applied to almost any substances. For that reason it was necessary to provide quite extraordinary limitations and safeguards against the misuse or excessive use of the powers which were given to the Minister, particularly bearing in mind that a failure to comply with any regulations made under that Act became immediately a criminal and penal offence.
Here the problem is in substance really a different and much simpler one. It is not simply the question of whether some particular apparatus like the electric iron, or something more complicated, is causing wireless interference which could be avoided by a suitable suppressor. That is a problem not very difficult and quite capable of solution by the expert committees which will consider this matter. It is different also in this respect, that a breach of the regulations under this Bill will not immediately give rise to any criminal or penal consequences, and that is one of the vital distinctions between this Bill and the Radioactive Substances Act.
That brings me to explain what is the real machinery of the provisions under this Clause because the point has not been appreciated sufficiently outside. The machinery under this Clause seeks to provide a safeguard for the citizen which I believe is almost unprecedented in the machinery of our law in matters of this kind, and one which ought to secure that each case will be treated individually, not in accordance with some set of regu-

lations binding in every case without regard to particular circumstances, but in a just and common-sense way on the merits of that case.
May I just remind hon. Members of the scheme of the Bill? First of all, before any regulations are made—it is at this stage that the manufacturer of apparatus will have his initial protection —the Minister is required to consult with an advisory committee. We have discussed the composition of that committee and the House will remember that it consists in part of persons who are affected by the regulations which are likely to be made and in part of technical people and manufacturers of the apparatus concerned. It is perfectly true that at that stage there is not, under the scheme of the Bill as opposed to the scheme of the Amndment, any formal right to object to the regulations in the sense of having the right to do so in some public inquiry in a legalistic and formal way. Whilst the regulations are in draft, however, and before the Minister finally makes them, he has to consult with this committee on which the manufacturer and other interested persons will be represented.
I know that there are exceptions and I do not want to make a bad point. but in the ordinary way, where the regulations will probably be expressed in scientifically technical language, the exact effect of which is unlikely to be appreciated by ordinary users of electrical apparatus, the right to object formally at the draft regulation stage would really be wholly illusory. The housewife, the motorist or the ordinary user of the common or garden electrical appliance that is becoming so popular nowadays will not really know or understand at the draft regulation stage whether or not the regulations are likely to affect him. When he will understand that is when the time comes, if it comes at all, that any attempt is made to enforce particular regulations against him. It is at that stage that we get the protection which, in my submission, is really of a far more fundamental and useful kind than would be any right to object at the draft regulation stage.

Mr. Grimston: I would remind the Attorney-General that in framing this Amendment we had the manufacturers more in our mind than the user as regards the making of regulations. That


is what I said, I think, at the outset of my remarks on the new Clause which has been accepted today. I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman to a very large extent about the domestic user and so on, but this question is of very much greater concern for the manufacturers as far as the regulations to be made under the new powers are concerned.

The Attorney-General: We hope that the manufacturer will get what in practice will be an adequate protection at the stage when the Minister consults the advisory committee and takes practical advice before any regulations are made at all. It is a statutory obligation that he must do that. True, it is not a statutory obligation that he must be bound by that advice, but the Minister, after all, must realise that these regulations can be enforced only if the appeal tribunal in a particular case thinks it reasonable to enforce them. He is not likely, therefore, to make regulations which his technical advisers—the advisory committee and, no doubt, the other persons from whom he will obtain technical information—have told him that it is really impracticable to enforce regulations of the particular kind that he had in mind.
The manufacturer, like the ordinary user of the individual piece of apparatus, will, of course, be protected at the second stage. The second stage is this: The regulations having been considered by the advisory committee in draft, the Minister makes them; it is then found that some particular piece of apparatus is causing interference in breach of the regulation. At that stage what will happen is that representatives of the Post Office will go along and discuss the matter with whoever is using the apparatus: that may be the manufacturer or someone to whom the apparatus has been sold or transferred. In 99 cases out of a 100 that will be the end of the matter. It will be pointed out that the apparatus is interfering and that some quite simple remedy can be applied. I know that the 100th case may be the difficult one, where a large expenditure is involved, but the great majority of these cases will, in fact, be of small pieces of apparatus like the flat iron, the vacuum cleaner or the refrigerator, which can be dealt with

quite simply. A visit from the Post Office engineers and an explanation will probably result in the whole thing being put right. That is the second stage.
If, in fact, the user of the apparatus, whether manufacturer or somebody else, is unable, for one reason or another, to take the advice of the Post Office engineers as to how the interference may be suppressed and the interference continues, then the Postmaster-General has to consider whether or not to serve an enforcement notice. He is not bound to do so. No doubt, had it been represented to him at that stage that it was unreasonable and impracticable to suppress the interference and he thought there was a good case to that effect, he himself would accept the responsibility of not serving an enforcement notice, knowing of course, that his action is always open to question here.
Supposing, however, that the Postmaster-General serves the enforcement notice. Then one gets to the third stage, to which I ventured to refer on a previous Amendment, where the user of this particular class of apparatus, whether he is the manufacturer or some subsequent user, says, "The enforcement of this regulation against me in respect of this particular class of apparatus is unreasonable. I am going to the appeal tribunal." Then the appeal tribunal, the "12 men on the Clapham omnibus," reasonable people who can take a broad view about the matter in the circumstances of the particular case, will decide whether or not it is reasonable to enforce that regulation in that case in respect of that apparatus. If they think it is not reasonable or just they will say, "Although this may be a very good regulation and one which ought to apply generally, we shall relax it in the circumstances of this case, because we think the harm done by the interference is outweighed by the good done by the use of the apparatus, or because we think that it is not really practical to suppress the interference because of the type of apparatus to which it is sought to apply it." That, we think, is the real safeguard which, in the last resort, will be available to any person, whether manufacturer or user, against whom it is sought to enforce under the appropriate regulation.

Mr. Grimston: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That is all very well in the case of a person, for example, but let us consider a firm manufacturing, say, 5 million flat irons, or whatever else they manufacture, in a year, suddenly being faced with a notice, "You are not to sell these things," under a regulation during the preparation of which they have had no chance of stating their case. There may be many considerations in a case of that kind which may not be grasped by a technical committee or with which a particular firm may have difficulty. Under the procedure which we suggest, however, a firm manufacturing on that scale would have some opportunity to say, "Now, you realise what this regulation will do to us."
Under the procedure proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, they may know nothing at all about the regulations then being proposed. In cases of that sort would it not be very much better for the firm to have a chance of coming in on the regulation-making stage? I agree very largely with what the Attorney-General has said about the small case, but here we are dealing with the large manufacturer who, under this procedure, may suddenly be visited with an order from the Postmaster-General to say "You are manufacturing ten million pieces of apparatus. You are not to sell them until you have done so and so." That will be the first notification which the manufacturer has had.

The Attorney-General: I appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman has made. We think, however, that in a case of that kind the manufacturer who is producing goods on any large scale will be in touch, either directly or through his trade association, with the advisory committee, and will know in advance exactly what regulations it is proposed to make. I believe it is correct to say that all manufacturers of this kind belong to trade associations. If the manufacturer hears, either directly or through his technical association, he will be able to make such representations as may be made in advance before the regulations are made. The difference between us here, I think, really is a question of form. The Amendment seeks to give a more formal method to representations for which the Bill really provides in its existing structure.

But, in seeking to give a more formal method to the objection at the draft regulation stage we think it would introduce a rigidity into the machinery of the Bill which would be most undesirable.
7.0 p.m.
It would be difficult to have both systems working side by side. If we had the draft regulations stage with the formal public inquiry and objection and if we followed that procedure, we would have to say that that regulation was binding and a breach of that regulation would be a criminal offence. We do not do that here, but say, "Make your objections at the draft regulations stage through the advisory committee, and the Minister will consider them and give effect to them." He is more likely to give effect to them because he knows that a breach of the regulations will not in itself be an offence and he will be able only to enforce them if the tribunal thinks it reasonable to apply them in a particular case.
That is an important safeguard to ensure that Ministers do not make regulations without advice and consultation beforehand and that if Ministers make inappropriate regulations they cannot be enforced unless in the view of the appeal committee in a particular case it is reasonable to enforce them. In the case the hon. Member puts one would think an appeal committee would be unlikely to say that it was reasonable to enforce the regulations when a firm quite innocently produced 5 million such articles without knowledge of the particular regulations. We have established a form of machinery here which is quite new and which give, in a way I, as a lawyer, very much welcome, a commonsense application to the law, which one does not always see in Acts of Parliament.

Mr. C. Williams: I have listened to the Attorney-General with very great care and I am inclined to think that what the Government are aiming at is not to get regulations which are too formal and rigid and in that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has our sympathy. But early in his speech he referred to the fact that in 99 cases out of 100 there would be no difficulty whatever, but in the 100th case there might be difficulty. That is exactly the trouble which comes from legislation when a thing is passed


on the assurance of a member of the Government that in almost every case it will be all right, but that there might be an occasional case where it will not be all right, or will be more difficult. I do not know whether there will be a Division or not, but I do not think it unfair or unreasonable to ask the Government to go into this a little more fully when the Bill goes to another place, as the Attorney-General has admitted that there will be that one per cent. of difficult cases. We ought to be quite sure before the Measure becomes law that everything possible is done to provide for difficult cases. It would not be unfair if the matter were gone into in another place, in case there is some other form of Amendment which might get over the difficulty.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 11.—(Enforcement of regulations under last preceding section.)

Mr. Paling: I beg to move, in page 10, line 16, after "that," to insert "either (i)." It may be convenient if we also consider the next Amendment, in line 17.
These Amendments arise out of an Amendment moved by the Opposition during the Committee stage in which they objected to the powers taken in case of non-safety services. They argued that in cases of interference with ordinary household radio sets these words were much too strict and that they ought only to apply to cases in which safety was concerned. The Attorney-General promised that we would look into the matter to see if that could be effected. If a complaint is received that the use of an apparatus is likely to cause interference with wireless telegraphy, notice can be served, but in future that will be confined to cases in which safety is involved. The last words in the second Amendment will apply to non-safety cases:
the use of the apparatus is likely to cause undue interference with any other wireless telegraphy and in fact has caused or is causing such interference.
The Opposition asked for that and we think it reasonable.

Mr. Grimston: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for introducing these Amendments, which meet the point we raised on Committee stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 17, at end, insert:
used for the purposes of any safety of life service or for any purpose on which the safety of any person or of any vessel, aircraft or vehicle may depend; or
(ii) the use of the apparatus is likely to cause undue interference with any other wireless telegraphy and in fact has caused or is causing such interference.

In page 11, line 33, after "tribunal." insert:
of a direction under this subsection.

In line 34, leave out "section," and insert "subsection."—[Mr. Paling.]

Mr. Hobson: I beg to move, in page 12, line 6, at the end, to insert: "unless the parties otherwise agree."
I suggest that it would be convenient also to take into consideration the Amendment in line 9. Here again we are trying to meet the wishes of the Opposition. On the Committee stage it was pointed out that as the Bill stood hardship might be caused to the appellant because the tribunal might be meeting at some distance from his home.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In line 9, at end, insert:
and in some place which in the judgment of the tribunal is reasonably near to the place where the apparatus was as aforesaid."—[Mr. Hobson.]

Mr. C. Williams: We very much appreciate what has been done by our Front Bench to secure these Amendments from the Government. The Bill was originally very harsh in many ways. There was general complaint all over the House, and the only people who have been able to do anything—and I congratulate the Government on having accepted their advice—are once again the Tory Party, who have again had to look after the small people.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Penalties and legal proceedings.)

Amendment made: In page 13, line 46, at beginning, insert:
Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act."—[Mr. Paling.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Entry and search of premises, etc.)

Mr. Paling: I beg to move, in page 15, line 48, to leave out "personally or by registered post."
These words are unnecessary because of an Amendment that follows.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Paling: I beg to move, in page 16. line 16, at the end, to insert:
Or
(c) discloses, otherwise than for the purposes of this Act or of any report of proceedings thereunder, any information obtained by means of the exercise of powers under this Act, being information with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret.
This is an Amendment which again was pressed upon us by the Opposition. We were asked to ensure that if our people, particularly under the new manufacturing Clause which was then envisaged, had to go into premises in order to obtain evidence or serve a notice, they should not disclose any trade secret, This Amendment is for that purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 16, line 17, at the end, to insert:
and criminal proceedings for an offence under
paragraph (c) of this subsection may be instituted without the consent of the Postmaster-General.
This is a consequential Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 16, line 17, at the end, to insert:
(5) No action shall be taken under Subsection (1) or Subsection (2) of this section until the expiration of two years from the date appointed for the coming into operation of this part of this Act provided that this subsection shall not apply where safety considerations are involved.
The object of this Amendment is to postpone for two years the powers of the Postmaster-General for snooping purposes in private houses. We tried in the Committee stage to get this provision removed, as we took the view that the Postmaster-General was tackling this problem the wrong way round. It is now reasonable to ask for a postponement of these powers for two years if only to encourage the Postmaster-General to get on with attacking the problem at the manufacturing end.
As I said in previous remarks, the easiest way of dealing with this problem is simply to take measures to deal with the consumer and say that he or she must use a suppressor or must not use the flat iron or the Hoover, or whatever the apparatus may be. That was the method which the Postmaster-General was tempted to follow. Now that he has introduced this further Clause in an endeavour to attack the problem at the end at which we thought it should be attacked, the manufacturer's end, it would be reasonable to suspend, except where safety considerations apply, the snooping powers which he takes in relation to private homes until such time as he has given himself a chance to see what he can do in having the trouble dealt with when the article is manufactured.
7.15 p.m.
This delay becomes even more desirable now that the right hon. Gentleman has these new powers. I do not wish to detain the House on the point, as we argued it out at length in Committee. I consider that for two years the right hon. Gentleman can very well postpone the powers which he is taking to enter private homes. When we discussed this matter it was stated that power had been taken to enter homes for many reasons previously, and that this was only another reason. It is undesirable to take these powers. The more one can cut them down the better. This is a case where this new power can be postponed.

Mr. Scollan: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House what he proposes to do in the case of someone suffering from a disability due to some gadget owned by a neighbour? Is the hon. Gentleman saying that for two years such a person must suffer that disability, and is it proposed that at the end of two years the Minister will be able to do something about the matter?

Mr. Grimston: The position will remain the same for two years as it is today. During the previous stages of the Bill we showed how tremendously exaggerated this interference is at present. It will not become acute until the day of universal cheap television. Practically our whole case for our attitude in this matter was that if the Postmaster-General


would give himself time he could solve the problem before it became acute without taking powers of snooping and of imposing pains and penalties. He has largely met our point, for which we thank him. That is my answer to the hon. Member. There is no great evil being done at the present time, nothing commensurate with the powers it was proposed to take. There is no reason why these wide powers should not be postponed for two years. Television will not have become universal by then, and the right hon. Gentleman will be encouraged to proceed by tackling the problem in me more difficult way, which is at the manufacturing end.

Sir I. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.
There is a sound case for postponing the bringing into operation of these drastic powers. I object to the powers being given, and it therefore follows that it is an advantage from my point of view to have them postponed for two years. There was a time when motor cars were in their infancy, and it was thought right by the Legislature that a red flag should precede them. People soon discovered that they could make motor cars that were not so dangerous as all that. In war it is commonplace for radio signals to be transmitted by one side to be jammed by the other, and he fails who cannot overcome the jamming, while he succeeds who can overcome it.
The whole purpose of this Measure is to make it easier for the technicians who are inventing and improving and devising methods of radio transmission, particularly television, to get away with an invention which is not fully developed. Whenever there is a new method of radio transmission it is feeble, the signal is attenuated, the technical skill required to use the new wavelength which is being explored is not sufficient. Consequently the signal which is transmitted is very weak, the receiver has to be extraordinarily sensitive, and as a result it is subject to interference from all kinds of local common objects in the home or in the factory such as we have heard about.
As time goes on the art and science develops until the signals go out far more strongly and in a far more efficient manner, and they are received well. All of us can

remember 25 years ago, when radio first began, how difficult it was to get a clear signal from the old 2 L.O. because of the interference, even for listeners in the neighbourhood whose sets made whistling noises. But all that was overcome. If at that stage it had been made a penal offence to produce these whistling noises the inventors would never have invented ways of sending out radio signals so that such whistling was avoided.
Surely it is a mistake to protect a young and new invention and to coddle it and thus enable the technicians to get away with it in its immature stage. An hon. Member opposite, asked what would happen under the Amendment and whether people who are affected would have to go on being distressed for two years. The answer is certainly "Yes." That person ought not to have bought apparatus which did not work properly and he ought not to have been encouraged to buy apparatus which can only work if the State protects it by interfering with people's homes. It is up to the people who sell a commodity to sell something which will work in the circumstances in which it is supposed to work. I am not opposed to some measure of regulation but the Bill protects the inventor at too early a stage. There will not be the incentive to the inventor to overcome difficulties. Two years' delay is better than not having any delay.

Mr. Hobson: My right hon. Friend is unable to accept the Amendment. There seems to be a general opinion that it is only television which is affected. That is not so. Ordinary wireless reception is effected in the same way as television. It is interesting to note that the number of complaints that we get at the Post Office has greatly increased during the last six months, particularly with regard to interference in respect of wireless. The Amendment would take away from the Postmaster-General powers which he already holds under the Acts of 1904 and 1926 to enter private premises and to search for unlicensed wireless telegraphic apparatus.
I do not wish to repeat the arguments used by the Attorney-General upon a previous Amendment, when he proved beyond a peradventure the safeguards that exist for the general public in regulations. It is not the intention of my right hon. Friend to rush into this matter.
There will be consultations with the advisory committee. When apparatus is to be scheduled the matter will be laid before Parliament in the form of regulations and there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to disagree with the proposals. We shall bring commonsense to bear upon the making of the regulations. We cannot accept the suggestion not only that the status quo will be maintained for two years but that powers which my right hon. Friend already possesses should be taken away from him.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 18.—(Interpretation.)

Amendment made: In page 18, line 27, leave out:
Except so far as otherwise expressly provided."—[Mr. Paling.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, after "by," to insert "registered."

The Amendment is put forward to meet a point which was put by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) in Committee. It provides that where notice is served by post it may be by registered post. There will be a choice between postal service and registered post.

Amendment agreed to.

SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to the Appeal Tribunal.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 20, line 8, at the end, to insert:
Provided that an order under this paragraph shall only be made where, in the opinion of the tribunal, the person against whom the order is made was acting frivolously or vexatiously in requiring the matter in question to be referred to the tribunal or, as the case may be, in making or resisting the application before the tribunal.

This Amendment is put down to meet a point which was raised by hon. Members opposite, and it meets it in the way which was commended to them as it was to us. It enables the appeal tribunal to award costs where proceedings are brought before it frivolously or vexatiously. We thought that our Amendment was more appropriate and the language more consistent with the rest of the Bill than that proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Grimston: I agree with the Attorney-General that the wording which he has produced is more appropriate than in the Amendment we have upon the paper. We are very glad to accept it.

Mr. C. Williams: I cannot imagine why these words were not in the Bill before. This is another case in which the Government have depended absolutely on the Opposition to make a Bill workable. Very violent things have been said about the Opposition by the Leader of the House. I congratulate the Postmaster-General upon knocking a certain amount of sense into the head of the Attorney-General.

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether I may speak, with the permission of the House, to make a point. It is that if the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) will refer to the Committee proceedings he will find that the opposite is the fact.

Amendment agreed to.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Paling: I beg to move, "That the Bill now be read the Third time."
I do not think it is necessary for me to make a long speech. The Bill has been threshed out fairly and fully. I referred to it in my opening speech on the Second Reading as a workaday Measure. It has come out of the proceedings fulfilling that description. It is very necessary. I was interested a few minutes ago when hon. Members were talking about this matter being one of mere entertainment and one which in the course of time would settle itself. I think that is wrong or, to say the least of it, far too optimistic. The evidence that we have shows the opposite tendency. If it had not been dealt with here and now it would have grown and might have become intolerable.
The first part of the Bill is principally repetition of the existing position. The second part is entirely new. We have about 11½ million listeners now and wireless is in practically every home. It plays a big part in everybody's life. Television is in the offing and may grow very rapidly, and it may play a big part. It was necessary that something should be done in this matter of interference. We had powers to deal with it, up to a point.


A huge proportion of the population voluntarily have worked with us, and helped to obliterate interference, but there is a section which did not. I said on the Second Reading, and I say now, that I think experience will prove that we shall use these powers very seldom, but the fact that the powers are there will be in itself a great help.
I am glad that we were able to deal with the manufacturing side of the matter. When criticisms were made on this point we had to realise that we had not taken power to deal with the matter at the source. There was some foundation for that complaint, and the criticism was very solid. It was not because we had not discussed the matter. That had been done previously to my going into the Post Office, but action was not taken because of the difficulties entailed. We have done our best to overcome these difficulties and I hope that the Bill will be successful.
This Bill has come out of the various proceedings of this House a better Bill, a workable Bill, and I think a Bill which will do much good. I thank all hon. Members for their co-operation and assistance in making this Bill into what I think is a pretty good Measure.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill is a better Bill than it was when it was first introduced into this House. For that I think we of the Opposition can take some considerable credit, although we thank the right hon. Gentleman for having met us on so many points.
Interference does exist and it will become acute, but the Government seemed to set about dealing with it in their usual way, of taking more compulsory powers, more penalties and more pains without ascertaining whether there was a better method of tackling the problem. We attacked the Bill on Second Reading as another instance of this grasping of further powers whenever the slightest excuse arose. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, in the process of Committee and Report it has become much better. We have made good one of the greatest defects in the original Bill, namely, that no provision was made to try and solve the problem

in the factory. As the Bill first appeared, it was the unfortunate consumer who bought an iron, a Hoover or an electric razor, or some such article, who was to suffer, because he interfered with somebody else and he could not use it unless he spent further money on it. That was the only method which the Postmaster-General intended to use to attack the problem. I am glad that we have changed that.
I hope also that the Postmaster-General has changed his mind and heart about the matter, because there is nothing to stop him continuing along the same old course and ignoring the new powers he has taken. I hope that will not happen. Hon. Members will remember, as a sort of illustration of this point, that in the early days of motoring one bought a motor car and then found that one had to buy a speedometer, lamps, and dozens of other things which were necessary before it could be put on the road. Private enterprise soon saw that that would not satisfy the motorist, and now one can buy a motor car with every conceivable thing already on it, and there are no additions. I hope that the Postmaster-General will remember that. and see that this apparatus which is produced .for the public shall be produced in such a way that the user will not find that he has to buy additions to it afterwards in order to stop interference.
There are very many difficulties in the way of tackling the problem at that end, but I hope that the Postmaster-General has now got the will to do it in that way There are considerable powers in this Bill. He has certainly now got enough powers to deal with this problem of interference. As a matter of fact, he will get rather more powers than I would like to see granted to him. But, having gained all the modifications that we have, we do not propose to take the matter to a Division on the Third Reading.
We have had a very full discussion and we think we have improved the Bill very considerably. We shall watch the regulations which the right hon. Gentleman produces under it. I hope that he will be able to deal with the matter with as little bother and interference as possible to the consumer and will endeavour to put into the hands of the consumer an instrument which he can use and over which he will not be called upon to incur


any extra expense after he has bought the article. We thank the Postmaster-General for what he has done, and we wish him and his Department success in the operation of the Bill.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I still view this Bill with very grave misgivings. We did vote against the Second Reading, but from that time, fortunately, we have been able to take a fairly full part in the discussion. We recognise that the development of new ventures may make it necessary to give a certain amount of power to the Government. We were faced at first with the fact that this Bill gave the Government almost unlimited powers. The one great fear that we had was that it would bear very hardly on the small householder who, when he got some new device, would find that he would have to buy some new gadget to put it in order.
During the whole of the proceedings on this Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has fought that point again and again, and he has managed to secure a great many concessions from the Government which make the position of the individual householder very much better than it was. Some of us arc suspicious when the Government ask for a Bill of this sort and say that they are going to be good about it and will not use the powers which they have. When it concerns men of a kindly disposition, such as the Postmaster-General, it may be all right for a short time. But he is not everlasting, and neither, thank goodness, is this Government.
It probably will be all right, because after the dusting the Government have experienced in this House over this Bill, they will not venture to abuse their powers for some time, and in a comparatively short time from now they will have disappeared from the present scene into the oblivion from which they should never have been taken.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That it is expedient, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the

Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 to 1933, and for purposes connected therewith, to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any increase in the sums payable, out of moneys so provided, under Section eleven of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, to the Agricultural Marketing Fund and the Agricultural Marketing (Scotland) Fund, being an increase attributable to so much of the said Act of the present Session as provides for extending the functions of boards or the areas to which schemes apply, extends the definition of the expression 'agricultural product' or enables schemes to be made applicable to Northern Ireland or any part of Northern Ireland;
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided, under subsection (5) of Section sixteen of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, in respect of the remuneration of the chairman or other members of, or of the secretary, officers, agents or servants of, or in respect of other expenses of, commissions or committees constituted or appointed under the last mentioned Act, being an increase attributable to so much of the said Act of the present Session as extends the functions of such commissions or committees or requires that when such commissions or committees are considering schemes applicable to Northern Ireland or any part of Northern Ireland there shall be additional members thereof."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Wilkins.]

Orders of the Day — BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES, U.S.A.

7.38 p.m.

Lord John Hope: British Information Services is the agency in the United States which is primarily responsible for disseminating information to the people of the United States about what goes on in Britain. I should like for a moment or two to extend that definition in order to give the Minister who is to answer time to arrive, because he, of course, will know exactly what British Information Services are.
The headquarters for general policy are at Washington, but the real nerve centre of this organisation is New York, and there are subsidiary branches in Chicago and San Francisco. Those of us on this side of the House who have been over to the United States and have seen their B.I.S., as it is called, at work, will pay a tribute to the courtesy of the staff there and their readiness to show


anything and everything that one wants to see. What I shall have to say will not be directed personally against the staff of British Information Services, but it will be directed against the responsible authority, which is His Majesty's Government. The cost to the taxpayer, which is really a relevant theme throughout my argument, is considerable——

Mr. Scollan: How much?

Lord John Hope: Just wait. For the year up to March, 1949, the Government's estimate for the New York Agency is £240,786. The actual function of this organisation is to distribute reports of speeches and broadcasts, to arrange for broadcasts and so forth, and also to arrange for the distribution of films. I believe that there are arrangements in hand connected with television. It also publishes its own material. Now that the Minister of State has arrived, I can tell him that he has not missed anything so far, that he did not know. This organisation publishes its own pamphlets. That is a material part of the argument which I shall put to the House. I wish to quote from a speech made by the Minister of State and also from an answer which he gave to a Parliamentary Question. The speech, which he made on 8th February, 1946, contains, I think, an extremely good definition of what British Information Services once were and what I think they should still be. This is what he said:
… the Foreign Office is zealously concerned with this business, not of pushing out propaganda, not of ramming stuff down people's throats, but of answering questions. That was the secret of B.I.S. I think B.I.S. did an excellent job during the war, and that was the essence of its success. It said loudly enough and plainly enough, We are here, but it invited questions, it did not offer answers. That will be the basis of the Foreign Office attitude on this matter. There is no propaganda that succeeds the day after, unless it is based on fact. I am sure that my hon. Friend did not mean that Dr. Goebbels was the most successful propagandist. …
That was a reference to a previous remark.
 He was a huge and lamentable failure. because he achieved results in 1939 which contributed substantially to bringing his country down in 1945. We have never competed in that kind of business"—
meaning of course false propaganda—

we have never competed in that kind of business, we never will as a country, and this country and this Office which I am serving most certainly will not in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 2115–6.]
Later than that the right hon. Gentleman gave a pledge in answer to a Question asked him on 20th January, 1948. The Question asked by what principle the British Information Services in the U.S.A. were guided when distributing copies of speeches in the B.B.C. series of political addresses. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
It is a principle that the British Information Services should not be used for party purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th January, 1948; Vol. 446, c. 14–15.]
Then the right hon. Gentleman said that they could, of course, issue party comments so long as they made it perfectly clear that what was being issued was a party comment. That is the pledge to which I shall draw the attention of the Minister—the principle that the British Information Services should not be used for party purposes.
In what I have to say, the House will see just how far the definition which I previously quoted has been adhered to and how far the right hon. Gentleman's pledge has been honoured by this Government. His Majesty's Government and the Socialist Party have inevitably a very great advantage in the United States of America. They can, by written and spoken word, defend what the Socialist Government are doing in Britain. There is no convention to stop them doing that. We on this side of the House, whatever lapses there may be—and to my regret I think there have been one or two—are constrained by convention, and encouraged to obey this convention by the Leader of the Opposition, not to attack our own Government outside our own borders. I believe that convention to be right and that it should be obeyed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I happened to be in New York at the end of last year and I saw the film version of the Leader of the Opposition at the Llandudno Conference. There was a full report of his speech. Would the noble Lord try to explain how he can justify that being shown all over America—an attack on His Majesty's Government shown in every big cinema?

Lord John Hope: I should have thought that the fallacy of the hon. Gentleman's argument was obvious even to him. Surely he is not suggesting for one moment—and if he does, I really could not accept it—that audiences who saw that film of the Conservative Party Conference at Llandudno did not know that it was a Conservative Party Conference. I wish to come to the question of examples.

Mr. Fairhurst: Would the noble Lord tell the Hosue what would be his reaction if his party were in power at present? What action would the Conservative Party take?

Lord John Hope: In what circumstances?

Mr. Fairhurst: The suggestion is that the Socialist Party is using its power as the dominant party for its own political purposes. What would happen if the Opposition—the Conservative Party—represented the dominant factor?

Lord John Hope: If the hon. Gentleman will listen to my speech, he will see that it deals with the question of principle as well as with specific examples. The short answer is that I should be just as much against the Conservative Party using British Information Services as an organ of party propaganda, and thereby being unfair to the Socialist Opposition, as I am in present circumstances against this agency being used to favour Socialist propaganda against us. What is sauce for one is sauce for the other. I refrain from using the usual words in connection with that proverb.
I wish now to deal with an extraordinary case that arose from the publication in an American magazine of an article by a man called Dr. Kessler. The magazine was "Mass Transportation." It is the trade journal of the American transport industry. In its issue for June, 1948, there was a highly controversial article about the nationalisation of transport in this country. Its publication was encouraged, indeed, was really caused, by British Information Services. I want to read just one typical gem from this otherwise rather dull article, which is, nevertheless, a very important article. This is the sort of thing which Dr. Kessler says in boosting the decision of the British Government to nationalise transport:

Thus, many of the natural misgivings on the occasion of drastic changes in old-established economic organisations, such as were expressed a year ago when coal was being nationalised, have not been entertained in the case of transport. But there are two more considerations making for a confident approach regarding the ultimate success of the reform. The one is the coincidence of the beginning of transport nationalisation with the remarkable recovery in coal output which must be ascribed in part to the effect coal nationalisation has had on miners …
The publication of that article under the auspices of B.I.S. was the reason for a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), who asked the Foreign Office under what authority the B.I.S. in the United States provided an article on Government policy on nationalising inland transport for the American magazine "Mass Transportation," whether Dr. Kessler was paid for the article by the British Information Services, and what the policy of His Majesty's Government was regarding the use of public services for the dissemination of political propaganda of this type. The answer of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will bear investigation by the House. He said:
The article by Dr. F. Kessler to which the hon. Member refers was produced by the Central Office of Information primarily for Switzerland and India.
These are the operative words:
As a careful factual survey, it was considered by British Information Services to be suitable for use in the United States.
He went on to say that no fee was, in fact, paid by B.I.S., and his answer concluded:
It is part of the duty of B.I.S. to supply material calculated to inform opinion in the United States of America on Measures approved by Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th September, 1948; Vol. 456, c. 198.]
Then, as a result of further correspondence between my hon. Friend and the Government, my hon. Friend received the following letter from a noble Lord who was deputising for the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I hope I am in order in reading the noble Lord's letter. He said:
The question you raise is whether it is not just as much the duty of the Information Services to arrange publication of articles arguing against the national monopoly for inland transport, as it is to arrange the publication of articles in favour of nationalisation. I think the answer is that it is not.
I do not see how that claim made by


the noble Lord can square with the pledge given by the right hon. Gentleman which I quoted at the beginning of my speech.
I now come to one or two further examples. First, I would remind the House of the occasion when the hon. Member for Lewes (Major Beamish) asked a Question about a statement issued by British Information Services to the effect that there was really no difference at all between the party opposite and the party on this side of the House, a statement which no doubt annoyed both sides, but a statement which, nevertheless, was made by British Information Services. The Government, as they had to do, climbed right down over this, and the Under-Secretary of State said:
My right hon. Friend has instructed His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to have an unequivocal correction published."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1947; Vol. 443, c. 1310.]
There was another question which I came across in a pamphlet called "Educational Notes" published in the Autumn of last year. No. 1 of this publication described the educational set-up in this country, but there is not one word describing the part which all parties have played in the educational position as it is now, and the unmistakable impression is given from reading this pamphlet that the party opposite was entirely responsible for the state of education in this country today.

Mr. Scollan: Would the noble Lord tell the House if there is any statement to the effect that this production is the product of a party or is it worded to the effect that it is the product of the Government?

Lord John Hope: I have told the House perfectly clearly that, in my opinion, the unmistakable impression is given by this article that the educational set-up in this country is entirely and only to the credit of the party opposite.

Mr. Scollan: The Government.

Lord John Hope: No, the party. I have the advantage of the hon. Member in having seen this publication, while he has not.

Mr. Scollan: Will the noble Lord tell us what it states?

Lord John Hope: I have told the House what the impression is.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The impression upon whom?

Lord John Hope: The impression upon anyone who did not, in fact, know what a tremendous part all parties in the country have played in the development of the present educational set-up.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Can the noble Lord identify the B.I.S. document to which he refers? I have read some of these B.I.S. documents, and they do not bear out the impression which the noble Lord has given, if that is his impression.

Lord John Hope: I have said that it was No. 1 of "Educational Notes."
There is another pamphlet called "Labour in Industry in Britain." I have something to say about several articles which have appeared in the course of publication of this quarterly review, and I refer now to Volume 6, No. 4, dated December, 1948. It has something to say about the economic outlook in future, after going through the capital re-equipment and investment programme and the various experiments being put through to increase output and so on. It makes this statement:
Labour is co-operating to the full.
It may be the opinion of some hon. Members that labour is co-operating to the full, but it is the opinion of some others that it is not, and that one of the Government's major headaches is to get labour to co-operate to the full. Therefore, this statement should not be made at the taxpayers' expense as indicating what is going on in Britain, because it is not true. [Interruption.] I know that what I have to say may be disliked by some hon. Members, but I am going to say it, nevertheless, and I hope they will allow me to make my speech and speak for themselves afterwards.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will the noble Lord not agree that that general statement is virtually true, when compared with the position after the first war, and, indeed, after a period of uncertainty, before the recent war? We have had spots of bother, but generally the argument is sound.

Lord John Hope: If all these qualifications which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned had been in the statement, it would have been a different, matter, but it was given as a bald statement which I have quoted and which was going to be read by people who could not have been aware of what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
Next, there is another comment in this issue about the direction of labour headed "How Wide is the Direction of Labour?" Anyone present at the debate on the Control of Engagement Order the other day will realise that the statement which I am about to read is far from the truth. It talks about the vast placing operation carried through under this Order. It says:
Unquestionably the power of direction must have played some indirect part in achieving this vast placing operation, but for the most part it has been carried through in an entirely voluntary spirit.
The Conservative Party and the Liberal Party attacked the Control of Engagement Order during the Debate on it, as a fundamental enemy of individual freedom and spiritual freedom in this country. Whether they are right or wrong, that is the opinion held by the two parties on this side of the House.
I come now to a publication called "Economic Record" of 7th January, 1949. I wish to give an example from this publication. In that issue the following statement is made about the coal target:
The target would probably have been reached if there had been the desired 25,000 more miners in the pits. The most noteworthy feature of Britain's coal trade in 1948 was the resumption of exports to overseas markets. Including bunkers, British coal exports last year were near the target figure of 16 million tons compared with less than 5½ million tons in 1947, of which the bulk was for bunkers.
That ex parte statement does not appear reasonable or right when it is compared with what was said by the Minister of Fuel and Power on 4th October, 1948. He said:
Unless there was an immediate increase in coal production the country could not fulfil its contracts for foreign bunkers and exports without drawing one to two million tons of coal from stocks. This could be done only once.
As the statement was printed by B.I.S. it gave a totally wrong impression of the state of affairs in the industry in this country.
Let me take another article. Hon. Members will want to know which pamphlet it was. It was the pamphlet "Labour and Industry in Britain," Volume 6, No. 3 of September, 1948. The right hon. Gentleman has had notice of this. An article which is called "Coal —the First Year" includes the following statement:
… The output from each man each day at the coal face was nearly back to the pre-war level, and in some parts of the country was constantly above it. …
But surely the significant factor about that year was that in 1941 some 12,000 fewer miners, with less mechanisation to assist them, produced 17 million tons more of deep mined coal than was produced in 1947. That is a sort of situation which could not possibly have been defined by anyone reading that ex parte statement.
Finally, there is this further example:
From the manifold employees of the industry in their various occupations, from the highest to the humblest, there came a real response.

Hon. Members: Yes.

Lord John Hope: It is all very well for hon. Members to say, "Yes." But they must set that statement against the fact that in this 12 months there were no fewer than seven speeches by the Minister of Fuel and Power telling the miners that they were not doing well enough. That is the fact, and that is the point.
There is an article in the September, 1947, issue of that magazine called "Nationalisation." It contains the following statement:
The scope is limited. The aim is economy and efficiency. Compensation is fair.

Hon. Members: That is right.

Lord John Hope: It is the opinion of hon. Members opposite that compensation is fair, but it is the opinion of a great many other people, including hundreds of thousands who have been compensated, that compensation is unfair. I am merely suggesting that it is not the function or the duty of B.I.S. to publish as a fact at the taxpayer's expense what is only a question of opinion. The article goes on to produce the old chestnut about there being only 20 per cent. of the country's economy in Socialist hands after the Government have carried out the election programme, while the remaining 80 per


cent. will remain under private ownership and free enterprise. Anyone who heard the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) during the Debate on steel nationalisation will know exactly what the position would be if the whole of the Government's 1945 manifesto were carried out, including the nationalisation of the steel industry, and any statement that the vast majority of British enterprise and industry will be left free at the end of that programme is simply mendacious and nothing less. Another quotation is:
One assurance that nationalised industries will be run with the accent on efficiency is the persistence with which this whole question is discussed in Britain.
The taxpayer is paying for a factual statement of that sort to be broadcast in America and it becomes ridiculous when we set against that statement the limitations imposed upon us so far as the responsibility of Government Departments in answering for nationalised industries is concerned.
Those are examples which have come to my notice and which I can quote in a limited time. I believe that the Government, no doubt unintentionally but nevertheless effectively, have in fact dishonoured their pledge, which I quoted at the beginning of my speech, and I believe the Government are carrying out what is party propaganda at the taxpayers' expense by trying to show that Socialism is successful in Britain when, in fact, it is failing in Britain. I know that Mr. Hoffman paid a great tribute to the efforts Great Britain is making and I know that if I had not referred to that tribute, the right hon. Gentleman would certainly have done so. Of course things are looking up in this country. Of course Britain is a good place. I will not listen to nonsense from anyone who may suggest that what I have said in my speech will do Britain no good at all. I maintain with complete conviction that Britain's recovery is due entirely to private enterprise and that it is the nationalised industries of this country, whatever hon. Members opposite may say, which have been a drain on our economy and which will continue to be a drain. Let hon. Members opposite show me anything in published figures from B.I.S. or anywhere else to show that I am wrong about the

nationalised industries and their effect upon the country's economy.
Anyone can make constructive suggestions as to what should be done to remedy the state of affairs. I think the idea of B.I.S. is good and sound but that the Government should do what they said they were going to do—that is stick to the facts, if they are to use B.I.S. If they are not willing to do that, let them give us equal facilities to put the anti-Socialist case through B.I.S. If the right hon. Gentleman has changed the Government's tune, well and good. I hope the Govern-will do something to redeem what I believe is dishonourable and discreditable, if typical, conduct.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I think the House will agree with me when I say we have just heard a most astounding speech which I think on reflection the noble Lord the Member for Midlothian and Northern Peebles (Lord John Hope) will regret having made. I think he fails to understand the whole cause and object of British Information Services and the necessity for publicising in America the work this country has done since the end of the war. It so happens that I was in America for a short time a few months ago and I had an opportunity to learn something of the value of British Information Services and to learn something of the deep interest which is taken throughout America in the achievements of this country since the end of the war. The noble Lord has accused the Government of bias and partisanship in some of the statements put out by British Information Services. In my view, he has entirely failed to make out his case in any of the illustrations he has given. I believe that on a fairminded, objective analysis of every statement that has been published by B.I.S. it will be found to be factually correct.
The noble Lord has failed to appreciate the whole object of this propaganda in America. The House and the country should know that the people of the United States, who, after all, are engaged at their own expense and at some self-sacrifice in providing this country with substantial sums of money at this time. are interested—and naturally interested—in knowing the policy of His Majesty's Government. They are really not particularly interested in the views of the


noble Lord. I think the country should know that apart from the literature which the Government sent to America through British Information Services they also arrange for a series of visits by Members of Parliament, to tour the United States from time to time, and that those visits are not confined to Members from the Labour benches, but include visits by Members from the Opposition benches. The noble Lord himself is one of the Members who have been selected since this Government have been in power to go to America to explain what is happening in Britain, and he was given a perfectly free hand in doing so.

Lord John Hope: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here when I began my speech, but one of the things I dwelt on for a moment was the disadvantages against which we have to labour, as compared with the advantage that supporters of the Government have. I did my best, and was particularly careful, as, I think, some of the Government know, not to launch a frontal attack in public on His Majesty's Government. Of course, it cramps my style in many ways. but I did not think that it was right to do so. There may have been individuals who have gone farther. I should regret it. I think it is wrong. However, it does not in the least alter for one moment the principle on which I am standing.

Mr. Fletcher: I give the noble Lord full credit for having personally always put forward the case with the fullest impartiality. He said he suffered from disadvantages; but, of course, the only real disadvantage from which he suffered was the fact that he does not appreciate the immense benefits which Socialism and this Labour Government have conferred on this country. That is really the disadvantage from which he suffered. He, like all the Members of the party opposite, is jealous of the achievements of the Labour Government, and jealous that the American population should know of those achievements. He fails to appreciate that what the American people are interested in is what this great Labour Government are doing, and how it is that their policy and Socialism have produced such immense benefits. That is what they are interested in knowing, because Socialism is something with which they are not yet familiar. They are relatively a new nation. They are an

intelligent nation; they take an interest in what is going on in Great Britain; they are interested in understanding the objects of the Labour Government.
It is veryimportant that the House and the country should understand—and it is a very remarkable thing in the world to-day—that the American people, who are, in a sense, completely obsessed with the menace of Communism, should, nevertheless, be contented and anxious to give the fullest possible assistance to this country, under our Labour Government, in building up our strength and resources.

Mr. Osborne: Despite the Labour Government.

Mr. Fletcher: Because of the Labour Government. Therefore, it is a very natural object of curiosity and interest among the American people to understand exactly for what the Labour Government stand, and why we find such great advantages of nationalisation, and so forth. They view it with a certain amount of ignorance, but they are really keen to understand the significance of nationalisation in Great Britain and to learn about the great advantages it produces. They are glad to learn of the great measures of social reform that this Government have introduced — the National Health Service, and our methods of securing full employment and banishing insecurity. They learn with pleasure the fact that we have had this tremendous co-operation in industry, that we have had a complete absence of those strikes on a large scale and labour upheavals, that broke out after the 1914–1918 War when there was a Conservative Government in power.
Those are the kinds of things about which the American people are interested to hear. It is quite impossible, i believe, to give the American nation the information it seeks and divorce the achievements of the country from the record and policy of the Government. They know about Conservatism. They have heard about that in the past for generations. They know what the Conservative Party stands for. They are not particularly interested to know how many votes were cast against the Transport Bill. They are anxious to know about the philosophy which underlies the policy and programme of the Labour Government, and for what they stand. I found wherever


I went that they were appreciative of all the information that was given them on that score. They were indeed also interested to know how the Opposition took it, but that was not their fundamental interest.
I think the British Information Services and the Foreign Office would be failing in their duty—and it is an important national duty at this time—if they did not fully explain the policy of the British Government to the people of the United States of America if they did not give them all possible information about our achievements. I am convinced by the questions I heard when I was there that they are impressed with the complete impartiality and factual objectiveness of the figures and information which they are receiving.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: I have seldom known any speaker in a Debate to give away his case to the other side more completely than the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) has done. Almost everybody in the House looked happy during his speech. Hon. Members opposite on the back benches looked happy because they did not understand what was happening. Hon. Members on this side looked happy because it was a peach of a give-away to answer. The only person who looked completely miserable and still does is the right hon. Gentleman who has to reply to the Debate. I have a great admiration for my noble Friend the Member for Northern Midlothian and Peebles (Lord John Hope), but, honestly, the case was made better by the hon. Member for East Islington. This was the whole purport of his argument. He said that the job of the British Information Services is to tell the United States of the glorious achievements of the Socialist Government. He said, "Let the British Information Services tell of the great joys and pleasures which everybody is enjoying under the Socialist Government at the present time." The idea that anybody in the British Information Services should say anything about the Conservative Party was another thing. "No," said the hon. Gentleman, "not that. That is out-of-date stuff. They have heard about that before. Keep that in the background."
That is exactly the case which my noble Friend was making on this side of the House. Let me make perfectly plain to the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply what our case is. We are not complaining that a Socialist or pro-Socialist article is published by British Information Services. That is not the burden of our complaint. We think that is perfectly fair; that there is nothing wrong with that. We are asking only for one thing, and that is that the other side should be put over, too. That is all we are asking. That is the position that the hon. Member for East Islington is not prepared to concede. We want the right hon. Gentleman when he replies to say that, as far as he is concerned, he will use all his influence to see that both sides of the case are put over, and that there is no prejudice in favour of only one side being put over by information services supported by Government funds. If the right hon. Gentleman will concede that, I think we shall have achieved the purpose of this Debate.

Mr. Blyton: Could the hon. Gentleman say what is the Tory policy that is to be put over?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As a matter of fact, perhaps on the broad point which my noble Friend raised—that on the question of transport policy—I could speak for a long time, but I do not want to turn this Debate into a discussion between the rival policies of the Socialist Party and the Conservative Party. We are not discussing that. What we are discussing is how the British Information Services, supported by public funds drawn from people who belong to all parties in this country, can properly be used. I am not complaining about Socialism being put over; I am only asking that the other side should be put over too. I do not want to attack the British Information Services as such. I know them. The only thing on which I agree with the hon. Member for East Islington is that I received very great help from them when I was in the United States. I think that they are well staffed, and I have no complaint about the British Information Services as such. It is about the way in which they are being used and the directives that are being issued that I am complaining. The criticism which always used to be made about information services supported by public


funds was that in the hands of an unscrupulous Minister or of an unscrupulous Government they could be used for party propaganda only. It is against that criticism that we wish to safeguard the British Information Services at the present time. On the evidence which my noble Friend adduces, they are open to that criticism through what has transpired.
We do not believe that it is right to use them for party propaganda. Let party politics stay in the House of Commons or on the hustings. The United States is not the place to argue the Conservative cause or the Socialist cause or any other party's cause. We owe too much to America to do that. Let it be remembered that no country in the world has sunk party politics more than the United States have—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on this—particularly on foreign policy and for the assistance of this country.

Mr. Harry Wallace: No.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Gentleman says "No."

Mr. Wallace: Yes, I do.

Mr. Thorneycroft: An election was fought recently in the United States, and in elections in all countries, feelings run pretty high, but I did observe in that election that there were precious little party politics, so far as the international situation was concerned. Both Republicans and Democrats, however much they may dispute at home, were both extraordinarily helpful to us here in Europe. John Foster Dulles and General Marshall were on our side, as well as Vandenburg. It did not matter about party politics then. I think that we might attain the same level of political morality in the use of our British Information Services. Once one starts this particular wrangle, there, is no end to it.
I have been to the United States, and it was not an officially sponsored mission. I was there about a year ago. I met as many people as I could in all walks of life. I was asked to places, and I was asked questions which I had to answer. I did my best to defend the interests of Great Britain. I did not go there as a Conservative to put over Conservative propaganda. I was asked

a lot of questions about His Majesty's Government, and I think that I had to stretch veracity a little far on occasions. One day, it may be, I shall have to answer for these things; but I did my best. I emphasised the moderation of the right hon. Gentleman who is going to reply to this Debate. I emphasised the rather Right Wing views of his Chief, the Foreign Secretary, and the moderation of the Lord President of the Council. When I was asked about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I hastily changed the subject. I did my level best, I can honestly say, to look at these things from a reasonable angle.
I now find that during the whole of this time—which I did not know at the time—the British Information Services, who were giving me great assistance, had been told that in so far as certain fields of their activities were concerned—the distribution of articles and so forth—they were to take a purely party line. I can substantiate that statement with letters which I have. I do not think that it was very wise or in the interests of His Majesty's Government. I do not think that eulogies on the glories of nationalisation are going over particularly well in the United States. They have a lot of prejudice against nationalisation. I am not saying that they are right or wrong. I have talked to John Lewis, the miners' leader, for whom I have a great respect, and I often wished that I could bring him over here to give his views about nationalisation in this country. I think that he would do so in a much more forthright manner than anyone on these benches.
I think that it would be a terrible thing if the British Information Services were to try to put over what is popularly known as a balanced view. There is nothing duller than a balanced view. All I ask is that both sides should be put over. My noble Friend quoted an article on the nationalisation of inland transport in Britain. All the resources of the British Information Services were placed at the disposal of Dr. F. Kessler, whoever he may be. probably a most admirable man, to help him to write this extraordinary article on transport, which is much the sort of stuff which the hon. Member for Enfield (Mr. Ernest Davies) might have written. Perhaps he did. I do not know. It is the sort of stuff he has put over regularly. I am not say-


ing whether it is right or wrong. It is the view of a particular section of people about the transport industry of this country, and it says what a magnificent thing this State monopoly is because Britain is a country in which cheap and efficient internal transport is absolutely vital. It does not say anything about the fares going up steadily. It says that the clash between public and private interests involved in a change of such enormous dimensions is obvious, yet the transfer is being widely accepted not merely as the inevitable consequence of the election programme of the present Government, but as a further logical step in her economic development. That is all right.
One is entitled to take that particular point of view, but when the article was sent to me I wrote to the Minister and said very humbly, "Could we put over another point of view?" I suggest that there is another way of looking at the transport problem. I think that even the hon. Member for Enfield would admit that there is another view about it. I was told, "No, certainly not." Until the Act had been passed, apparently I was allowed to do it, but once the nationalisation of transport Bill had become an Act of Parliament then, according to the view at the present time, it is the job of the British Information Services to put over what is the accepted view of the British Government.
No doubt hon. Members opposite would face the future, so suppose we consider the year 1950 when the Conservative Party are in power, as no doubt they will be; suppose the Conservative Party then pass an Act of Parliament to de-nationalise the road haulage industry of this country, as no doubt they will Are we to use the British Information Services and upon that Act to hang an article attacking Socialism? I think it would be a grossly improper procedure if we did such a thing.

Mr. Shurmer: Why would the party opposite de-nationalise road transport?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not intend to argue the merits and demerits of the case.

Mr. Shurmer: They would attack Socialism from underneath.

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Member will just pay attention for a few moments I shall try to persuade even him of the case I am arguing. Perhaps he will not interrupt, but will just listen. We are not here concerned with whether Socialism or Conservatism is the right way of governing this country. We are not concerned with that at all.

Mr. Shurmer: I think you are.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, we are not. At any rate we on this side of the House are not. What we are concerned with is that the British Information Services, which is a Government service available to everybody and supported by everybody, should put over both sides of the question; that it should be available to those who argue for the great historic traditions of freedom just as much as to those who argue, as they are entitled to argue, for a rather different approach to the subject. That is all we are asking. I am not here saying that the nationalisation of transport is a good thing, a bad thing or an indifferent thing. That is irrelevant to my argument. All I ask is that both sides should be put over.
Let us consider another case. Suppose when a Conservative Government are returned they reverse the decision to nationalise the steel industry. Now, it would be quite possible to write a very savage article upon that; it would be possible to make a bitter attack upon the Socialist movement, about the divisions in the Cabinet and the use of a particular industry for nationalisation to satisfy the Left wing of a political party, putting party politics above the interests of a country. All those things could be used; but I think that it would be wrong to use them. The right place for that sort of argument is the House of Commons not the United States of America. What we want to do, as far as foreign countries are concerned, is to minimise our internal differences and maximise our national unity.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when he replies not to debate the merits and demerits of particular proposals with which we are not concerned. All I am asking is that the present decision, that once an Act has been passed we are not allowed to use the British Information Services for distributing a publication or anything which criticises, should be reversed, and that in future the great


tradition of this country, that both sides of the argument can be put forward, should be extended to a Government service supported by public funds.

Mr. Fairhurst: Before the hon. Member concludes will he answer this point? The party opposite is the aggrieved party and the complainant in this matter. Will the hon. Member tell the House of any responsible authority in America which has protested against what has been published by the British Information Services—one single authority?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have had a complaint about this very letter. They thought it a very odd thing that only one side should be put over.

Mr. Fairhurst: Who was it from?

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Harry Wallace: I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) who, while suggesting that controversial questions should only be discussed here, seemed to want to carry those controversial questions into the British Information Services. He really should make up his mind. Why does he want to carry the controversy into America? The service rendered by the British Information Services in the United States of America is excellent and impartial, and no evidence has yet been produced in this Chamber that the Service is not impartial.

Mr. Osborne: It is pro-nationalisation.

Mr. Wallace: Let us consider the question of nationalisation. The B.I.S. does not argue for or against; it simply explains; that is one of its objects.

Mr. Osborne: Is it not fair to say that if the person explaining is either for or against what is being explained, he puts a colour on his explanation, and that, therefore, if a direction is given with an emphasis on one side, the explanation is not, and never can be, fair?

Mr. Wallace: I have often listened to the hon. Member, and I am sure that he finds difficulty in giving an explanation which is not coloured by his political views; but that is not the inability of the B.I.S. The case for or against nationalisation can be stated without introducing party politics. I have listened to the right

hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) make out a case, and a pretty good case, for nationalisation.

Mr. Osborne: It depends on what is nationalised.

Mr. Wallace: The right hon. Member for Woodford talked about the nationalisation of railways. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that the Americans told me that the first thing to be nationalised in the United States of America would be the railways.

Mr. Osborne: It depends on which Americans the hon. Member talked to.

Mr. Wallace: All of them. They are not afraid of nationalisation. They want to understand it; they are interested; they will, I think, adopt it, just as the President has adopted some suggestions on social security. In explaining what this country has been doing, the B.I.S. has rendered a service to the United States of America, as is illustrated by the vote of the American people for a President of their own choice, irrespective of party. I am glad that both sides of the House agree that this service should he continued.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Not on these terms.

Mr. Wallace: That is another point. I am glad, too, to hear the statement that the personnel of the British Information Services is good and renders satisfactory service. The only suggestion up to the moment is that both sides of the case should be put. But that is not the object of the B.I.S. The object of the B.I.S. is to state what is being done in this country, irrespective of party.

Lord John Hope: indicated dissent.

Mr. Wallace: It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. There are hon. Members of the party opposite who have visited the United States and said the most atrocious things.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I could name one or two hon. Member opposite who are not even allowed inside the United States.

Hon. Members: Who? Names

Mr. Wallace: I have the same respect for the traditions to which the hon. Member has referred. There are one or two


people from the benches opposite whom I would keep outside the United States They do not do us any good.
I have only two more points to make, and then I will sit down. Since 1945, Labour in this country, although it can be criticised and though there may be disappointments, has done better than was done after the 1914–18 war. My test for that is not a general statement, but the number of days lost in strikes after the 1914–18 war and after the 1939–45 war.

Mr. Osborne: Who organised the strikes in 1918?

Mr. Wallace: Hon. Members opposite did, and if they were in power today they would do the same thing again.

Mr. Shurmer: What about the ex-Service men? Who was responsible for starving them when they came home after the last war?

Mr. Wallace: The period 1925–26 was the direct responsibility of the Government of the day.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: What about Arthur Horner and the million pounds from Russia?

Mr. Wallace: What about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford and the restoration of pre-war gold parity?

Lord John Hope: What about the Debate?

Mr. Wallace: Then we get the sentiments of the noble Lord about private enterprise. Who owns private enterprise? The worker, the manager, or the man who just holds the shares and receives the 40 per cent. dividend, but who does nothing for the industry? Let us get down to the people who do the work. I am not talking of one kind of worker but of all the people who work. Hon. Members opposite cannot deny and, indeed, they will admit, that the people of all sections in this country have responded splendidly to the nation's need in rationing, taxation, work and so on.
In conclusion, I would say that it would be disastrous if the B.I.S. did not explain to the United States what this country is doing. It does not explain the party view

—neither the Labour nor the Conservative point of view—but it explains the Measures which have been carried through, and why. I found that one of the things which interested the Americans most was the National Health Act. They have people who die, because of want of medical attention. I found the poor people in New York very interested in rationing, because they cannot afford to buy butter and bacon. They never see them.

Mr. Osborne: That is rubbish.

Mr. Wallace: It is not rubbish, and the word "rubbish" used in this connection by the hon. Member is just nonsense. There are millions in America who cannot afford butter.

Mr. Osborne: Rubbish!

Sir William Darling: Why did we take the American Loan if that is so?

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) says "Rubbish," but he knows nothing about it. When it comes to housing I can refer to my own borough of Lambeth. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, when she was here, expressed appreciation of what we have done for housing, and said there was nothing like it in the United States.

Mr. Osborne: Mr. Osborne rose——

Mr. Wallace: No, I am not going to give way again, because I have finished and the hon. Member can then get in his own shot. The argument from the other side seems to be that they want the B.I.S. to be used for Tory propaganda.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: From the heat that has just been given out by the hon. Member for East Walthamstow (Mr. H. Wallace), one would think that the Americans were in such a bad condition that they were applying to us for Marshall Aid and not we to them. If they are so shockingly short, if they are so shockingly underfed and badly housed when compared with this wonderful Socialist paradise, why is it that we are going on our hands and knees to beg our daily bread from them? This is important to the issue that has been made. In Command Paper 7275 which we are going to discuss on Thursday, we are shown going cap in hand to the American Govern-


ment for assistance, and saying to them that if they do not give us 940 million dollars we shall have mass unemployment and starvation in this country. If hon. Members opposite would like to look at the paragraph, they will find it on page 64 of the White Paper. The hon. Member for East Walthamstow has the impudence to say in this House that it is——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) must withdraw the word "impudence."

Mr. Osborne: I beg your pardon. I do not know the Parliamentary term for such an enormity, but I will withdraw at your instruction, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The last thing I should like to do would be to disagree with your Ruling. I come back to the fact that we are shortly going to debate a Bill which is formally putting into words a begging appeal to this poor, underfed, under-housed and half-starved America to give us 940 million dollars. That is what the Socialist Government are compelled to say in the White Paper, and they go on to state in the last paragraph on page 64 that if we do not get that money the results in this country will be too dreadful to think about. It is monstrous that such nonsense should be talked from the benches opposite, because it will do great harm on the other side.
Let me return to the B.I.S. and the Debate which my hon. Friend the noble Lord the Member for Northern Midlothian and Peebles (Lord John Hope) initiated. Three years ago, on 8th February, 1946, on the Adjournment I raised the question of B.I.S., and I asked the Government not to cut down its allocation of funds, because I felt it was doing such a good job. I said then that I believed that Anglo-American understanding was of such vital importance to the peace of the world and to our own prosperity that the more money we spent on B.I.S., the better. I still stand by what I said three years ago.
Since then I have had the opportunity of seeing B.I.S. work, for I have been in America twice—in 1947 and 1948. I have seen the main offices in Washington, New York and Chicago. I want to pay my tribute to the great body of officials and to the fact that they apparently know their job backwards, for they are in close touch with American newspaper men, which is their main job, and they are

doing very good work. The nation is getting very good value for the money we are spending on B.I.S. Whatever complaints may be made by my noble Friend, they should not reflect personally upon the officials who are carrying out the policy over there which is laid down for them, because obviously the B.I.S. officials are merely putting out propaganda, which is being issued by the Socialist Government. One thing which the Americans dislike and distrust is propaganda. They do not want it. They have had enough from Dr. Goebbels. What they want are the plain facts.

Mr. Shurmer: They are getting them now.

Mr. Osborne: If the hon. Member would just sit and listen it would be a great help. I am sure that the Americans are not getting the whole of the facts which would give a true impression of the position in this country. It is only a few weeks since I was at the B.I.S. offices in New York and saw the pictures and the pamphlets there. To those Americans who do not know the full details, they would give a highly coloured picture of the success of Socialism in this country, and certainly a much more highly coloured picture than the facts warrant. That is the complaint which my noble Friend is making.
I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth who says that he wants both sides stated. I would rather have neither side stated. I would rather have the bare facts put in front of the American people. I would remind the House of the success of the B.B.C. during the war with its European Service. The people in occupied Europe came to trust the B.B.C. broadcasts because they could rely on the facts as they were not coloured one way or the other and there was no propaganda in them. That is the job which the B.I.S. should be doing. It would be a shocking thing to use this instrument for whatever Government is in power. While hon. Members opposite jeer with rather extravagant optimism about the impossibility of a Conservative Government coming in next time, they may one day face what Jimmy Maxton prophesied in 1945—a Communist Government—and surely they would not like the B.I.S. to be used for Communist propaganda. The trade union chiefs would not. It is therefore utterly foolish


to use this organisation, which the taxpayers of every class help to maintain for party purposes.
I will give the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply an example which I had in Washington. Obviously I cannot give the name here, but I will give it to him privately afterwards. As a result of B.I.S. propaganda, three or four of us in Washington were discussing the nationalisation of coal and this very responsible British official said to me, "Of course, it has been a huge success.' I said, "Do not talk such nonsense, man." His proof was that output had gone up so much. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] He said that the output was greater now than it was before the war. I again said, "Do not talk such nonsense." There was no stopping his argument until I insisted on his sending to another department for the monthly statistical abstract and looking at the facts which the Lord President of the Council produced there which showed that production per man was lower today than it was pre-war. I will give the right hon. Gentleman that official's name in confidence if he wants it; it would not be fair otherwise. That official had received that impression from the flow of half propaganda, half statistics that comes through the B.I.S. He had a too highly coloured impression of what was happening. That ought to stop. All the facts ought to be given so that when, with the political swing, hon. Members opposite are sitting here they will have no more to complain about than we ought to have tonight.
An hon. Member opposite said to my noble Friend that the statements given out by the B.I.S. were virtually true. I am not quite certain what "virtually" means. It is a qualification which might mean anything. It is because he has to put that qualification in that I object. I want it to be true and not "virtually" true. That is the reason for our complaint. The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) said that the Opposition were jealous of what Socialism had done for the people of Britain. If hon. Members will read the White Paper on the economic situation issued last March and the latest White Paper, they will find that the amount of food we are consuming is about 75 per cent. of what we had

before the war. If they think that is a wonderful success, they can keep their success.

Mr. Shurmer: What is the health of the country compared with before the war?

Mr. Osborne: If the country can live on fresh air and do so well——

Mr. Baird: What about unemployment?

Mr. Osborne: I am dealing with food at the moment. Let us stick to one point. According to the Government, we are today importing 75 per cent. of what we were before the war in basic foodstuffs. Last year we had an average of 67 1b. of meat per person, rich and poor alike——

Mr. Shurmer: That is what is the matter—rich and poor alike. Hon. Members opposite do not like that.

Mr. Osborne: —as compared with 110 1b. before the war. If that is Socialist progress, the sooner we go into reverse the better. My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth said that at the election in the United States recently, party politics as regards foreign affairs were entirely eliminated, and his statement was challenged. I was in Chicago the night of the presidential election. I went there to learn some political lessons and I learnt a lot. It is monstrous to say about the American scene things which are so obviously untrue. The one grand thing about the American situation today from our point of view and the point of view of all freedom-loving people is that two great American parties have agreed to take foreign affairs out of the arena of party politics. That was what my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth was asking should be done in the B.I.S. The hon. Member for East Islington said that all the Americans—I challenge the word "all"—were in favour of the nationalisation of railways.

Mr. H. Wallace: Interested in.

Mr. Osborne: I put it down as he said it and HANSARD will prove it tomorrow. If he said what I have him down as saying, that is just about as much nonsense as the other stuff he talked. He ended by saying that the people of this country had responded splendidly to the Socialist


appeal. That is largely true and we should say so, but we should also tell the American people that in the last six months in the relatively small coalfield of Yorkshire, 600 miners have been dismissed by a Socialist board for persistent absenteeism. We should tell them the whole facts.
All I plead for is that the whole facts should be put to the American people because it is of such vital importance that they should understand what we are doing, what our difficulties are and how heroically our womenfolk at least are behaving, despite what some of the men are not doing, and let them judge for themselves. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman does or does not do as a result of this Debate, I hope he will at least bear in mind that the Opposition have a high regard for the work the B.I.S. is doing and for the men who are staffing the service. All we ask is that they should give the facts, the plain facts and nothing else.

Mr. Tiffany: Where does the hon. Member get the figure of 600 miners dismissed for absenteeism in Yorkshire?

Mr. Osborne: From the National Coal Board. If the hon. Member will wait until Thursday, I am asking a Question of the Minister of Labour as to how many of them are drawing the dole.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: I listened with great interest to the noble Lord the Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Northern (Lord John Hope) who raised this question, and I cannot make up my mind how the three Members who have spoken from the Opposition benches on this matter fit in. The noble Lord started by castigating the whole of the British Information Services as being used for one purpose and one purpose alone, as a propaganda agency for the Labour Party, and because it was being used for that purpose, he could not find that the Government were justified in spending £240,786 on the New York agency. That was the noble Lord's case. He then pointed out that the function of the British Information Services was to publish speeches, to show films, and to have them distributed in the United States. As he put it, the impression that was gained

from both the films and speeches was that of purely Labour Party propaganda.

Lord John Hope: That is quite wrong. What I said was that they also published their own material. It was with that material that I dealt specifically throughout my speech, as the hon. Member well knows.

Mr. Scollan: If I am wrong, would the noble Lord please tell the House what was his objection to the distribution by the British Information Services? Was not his objection based on the fact that it was being used as a propaganda agency for a particular view? Did not the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) follow that up by asking why, since it was being used as a propaganda agency for a party point of view, it should not be used equally as a propaganda agency for the Opposition point of view? On the other hand, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) made it quite clear that he was satisfied that they had done a good job. As a matter of fact, he went out of his way to pay tribute to the efficiency of the staff and to the manner in which they had done their work.

Mr. Osborne: Will the hon. Member allow me to correct that? It is perfectly true that I said they are doing a good job and that I asked for more money to be given to them. I think they are good men and they are working hard, but I said that the half statements, of which my noble Friend complained, were not their work but were sent to them by the C.O.I. in London.

Mr. Scollan: Now that we have heard an explanation, I think it is even worse than the statement. One thing I would deplore and that is that any hon. Member in this House, irrespective of the party to which he belongs, should rise to make the point that this nation, after the heroic efforts we have made, is at the point of bankruptcy where we have to beg from anybody, and it is not true. Let the hon. Member for Louth read tomorrow's HANSARD and be thoroughly ashamed of himself. When he stated that this Government has to borrow——

Mr. Osborne: "Beg" was the word.

Mr. Scollan: Beg 940 million dollars——

Mr. Osborne: It is true.

Mr. Scollan: Yes, it is true, but the amazing innocence of the hon. Member for Louth is such that he does not know that this is the one country in Europe that is solvent. If the hon. Member for Louth would pay attention he would learn something. The only reason why we have to borrow the 940 million dollars is due to the currency and exchange—and this is something for the champions of Capitalism—the monetary system of the capitalist world having broken down completely and because we have not found a solution for it.

Mr. Osborne: So we are not begging anything!

Mr. Scollan: That is not the point. In the hard currency areas and in the Southern States of America and Canada, the dollar has an entirely different value from what it has here in Great Britain. I think the hon. Member for Louth will know that. Under the international money exchange the amount of soft currency that had to be frozen because of the war has prevented it from reaching par with the hard currency; but in this country, if he looks at any balance sheet or reads the Chancellor's statement on the progress of the nation and its imports and exports he will find that, judged by the 1938 rate of exchange, we actually show a surplus. Probably the hon. Member for Louth cannot follow that, but if he gives me some time during the week I will explain it to him privately.

Lord John Hope: The answer may be a long one.

Mr. Scollan: The answer is not long at all. It is even simpler than one would imagine.
One of the main criticisms against this service was that it was being used for Socialist propaganda in the United States. I could not for the life of me follow the reasoning of the hon. Member for Monmouth. He said, "Let us keep the propaganda in this country. Do not send it to America." As a matter of fact, I should oppose the Government if it used its agencies for propaganda for Socialist policy in this country, because that would be prostituting its power over the electors at the next General Election.
It is said that the Government's propaganda is doing harm in being taken

to the United States. Let us try to remember the opposition to us in 1945 when the people of this country took the plunge for the first time and returned the Socialists to power. Many people all over the world wondered what would be the result. I can remember Lord Halifax telling us about the effect it had in the United States, where a very high dignitary of the Government had said to him, "Well, this means civil war." They obviously believed it. In 1945, when that very serious step was taken by the electors in Great Britain, many countries watched, some with alarm and some with sympathy, what would happen here. At that particular period it was generally accepted by the people who matter in the United States that the last war had made Great Britain bankrupt. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. That could be read in the Press of 1945. The general consensus of opinion was that this country was finished and down and out.

Mr. Shurmer: The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said so.

Mr. Scollan: The right hon. Gentleman did not know any better. That was the general consensus of opinion. The Government which was elected in 1945 had to establish in the minds of its friendly neighbours that they had a completely wrong conception of the state of this country and the Empire. It was perfectly true that these people saw India, Pakistan, and other parts of the Empire leaving. They naturally jumped to the conclusion that it meant the bankruptcy of this nation. British Information Services had the difficult job of translating into understandable language in the United States and other countries what was the position here and how the Government were tackling it. That was the job which faced these Services. They have done it well.
What did they do? They had to make the American people understand that this country was not a bankrupt down-and-out and that our people were not an irresponsible people who had taken an irresponsible step that might create a bloody revolution or something of that kind. They had to go step by step and show the American people what was happening. To give an example of the measure of the confidence of the United States in this country in 1945, I would


remind my hon. Friends that its first action immediately after this Government was elected was the cutting off of Lend-Lease. It is quite an easy matter to run the country and keep the people well fed and well clad when someone else is giving Lend-Lease and pouring it into the country. The first thing that happened was that Lend-Lease without notice was cut off. Any Government of this country is responsible for the feeding, clothing and housing of a population of 50 millions. It had to be obtained somewhere and this Government was compelled to go to the United States for a loan. Many hon. Members opposed it, and I did not like the loan but I knew that "needs must when the devil drives."
One thing we could not do was to establish confidence to get a loan unless they knew that there was a reasonable chance of our becoming solvent, and consequently, the British Information Services, using every Act passed by the Government and every Order issued, had to explain to the people of the United States, especially the people in power, the reason why it was necessary and what the effect would be. The Minister of State has nothing for which to apologise. This is one of the finest services we ever had and no case has been made against it, but for contradictory statements from three different sources in the Opposition.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Parker: I also have been in the United States recently but my impression was very different from that of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). In fact I heard complaint to the opposite effect, namely, that trade unionists and others who wanted to find out certain things happening in this country found it difficult to obtain the information even when they went to British Information Services and asked for it. Frequently it came very late after the time they wanted it. In many instances that was the burden of their complaint. On the whole, I do not think that complaint was justified, but I met with it.
A lot of false information about this country is circulated in the United States and put out deliberately by the Press of the United States. The great mass of the Press is owned by Big Business there, anxious to see that the people

of the United States do not copy things done in this country, and therefore to discredit everything done in this country. The impression is widely put round that we have a slave State in this country and that everyone is forced into a particular job whether he wants it or not and so on. Continually I had to face that charge and give the explanation of what is happening over here.
The story is put out that conditions are extraordinarily bad in this country. I attended a dinner of the Scottish people in Detroit and to my surprise a woman got up and made an appeal for the starving people of Scotland. She went on to say it was very necessary to collect large sums of money and food and arrange to have vans going round the streets of Glasgow and other big towns in Scotland to serve soup to people who had nothing to live on and were practically at death's door. Having been in Glasgow before going to America and having also been there in 1938 I was able to explain exactly what the circumstances now were in Glasgow, and the big change in the health of the school population during that period.

Mr. Osborne: Did the hon. Member stop the food parcels?

Mr. Parker: When I had finished explaining the position accurately and told them fully of the shortages, this woman got up and said, "Of course you have destroyed the value of my appeal," but the chairman of the meeting definitely paid tribute to this country saying he appreciated hearing that we were doing something to help ourselves. That is an important point and requires bearing in mind.
People in the United States want to know what we are doing in this country. If they think we are doing things to help ourselves they are far more likely to show appreciation of this country than if they get the impression that we are entirely down and out and are making no effort to help ourselves. That false impression is being put out by a large section of the American Press, and it is only right and proper that British Information Services ought to give the full facts of what the Government are doing, and an explanation of why they are trying to do these things, thereby


benefiting this country and its reputation in the United States.
I was very struck by the large number of what one might call "British refugees" who spend their time going round the States trying to undermine the reputation of this country and what it is doing. There are too many people of that kind, and I think it is a disgrace that people of British origin should attack their own country when they know that the country happens to be in difficulties, even if they may disagree with the Government of the country at the present time. I was told by a number of people in the United States that the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) had been invited over on a number of occasions in the hope that he would make a speech attacking this country. To his credit he had always refused to do anything of the kind. That I think is very much to his credit. But it is a pity that other people, some of whom share his political views, have not also adopted that line when they have been in the United States.
At the present time there is a very keen interest in the United States in some of the things happening here from the point of view of Americans wishing to know whether or not it is worth while copying us. For example, there was great interest in our housing policy. Housing is a very serious problem in America. There are very bad slums in many parts of the big cities of America and in the south. It is still true, as President Roosevelt said, that a third of the people in the United States are definitely "under privileged." Housing is very important to them, and, rightly or wrongly, they are interested to know what we have done to try and deal with the situation. They will not necessarily want to copy us, but they want full information to understand how and why we have tried to deal with the situation.
I found great interest also in our proposals for trying to deal with the medical services here. There were very violent attacks on those proposals by the medical people in America who feared that something of the kind might also be introduced over there. The high cost of health services in the United States, although their hospitals are of a very high character, is very real, not

only for the poor, but for a considerable section of the middle classes there. There was naturally quite a wide interest and endeavour to find out what went on over here and how far we had failed or succeeded, and to see whether they might do Something on the same lines.
That information has not been given to the American people in the American Press. It is only right and proper, and for our benefit as well as theirs, that when we have a big democratic country like America, anxious to make experiments in its institutions, they should be given the opportunity of knowing what we have done, so that they can learn from our mistakes and from our successes when carrying out things in their own country. British Information Services has been doing a good service not only to this country but also in helping the Americans and supplying them with the information which they want, so that they can make experiments on similar lines if they wish to do so. I consider that, on the whole, it has done good work, and I hope that that opinion will be shown by the general feeling of the House in this Debate.

9.20 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil):: I am sure that hon. Members will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) for bringing the House back to the subject raised by the noble Lord. I, of course, do not intend to take any part in the violent battles which have been going on for most of the evening. It was an excellent opportunity for Members on both sides to get off some of the speeches they had not delivered at the week-end. I most heartily agree with the observations which the noble Lord made about the conduct of British people, whether they are Members of this House or not. I particularly want to say, in view of the criticisms which the noble Lord made about the British Information Services tonight, that I have reports of his speeches in the United States. I spoke to people in one town where he had spoken and they commented upon the generosity and fairness of the noble Lord in speaking of Britain and not of his party. I also want to say that that is the general attitude of Members of this House when they are abroad.
I am sure that the House will want particularly to associate themselves with the remarks offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham about these people, usually in my experience third-class business men, who, having no great ability to offer, spend their time seeking to sell short their own country in the United States. I am not a business man. I sometimes imagine that I would scarcely be less successful than some hon. Gentlemen opposite, if their commercial ability is to be judged from their political performance. I think I shall be fairly safe in saying that I do not believe for a minute that the business men of the United States are at all impressed by a whining story from a man, who poses as having something to sell that is British, almost begging for charity instead of orders. I am quite sure that the people of the United States respect the kind of attitude normally offered by Members of this House which is of pride in their own country and an anxiety to tell what they can do. Whatever else I have to say, I want to say that the noble Lord has upheld that tradition in his journeyings in the United States.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) has already pointed out, the attack opposite did not bear much evidence of coherence or collaboration.

Mr. Osborne: Hear, hear.

Mr. McNeil: It is better that an attack should be concerted. It might be convenient if I attempted to deal with the case offered by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) as distinct from the case offered by the other hon. Gentleman.

Lord John Hope: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget my case.

Mr. McNeil: I shall not. I really was as anxious to protect the noble Lord from his colleague as to do anything else at this stage. If I understand the hon. Member for Monmouth, he separates himself sharply from the noble Lord——

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: indicated dissent.

Mr. McNeil: Perhaps I was mistaken. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that his complaint was not that the British Information Services were used to display the Labour point of view in the

United States. I understood him to say that he was not asking for non-contentious articles. I thought I remembered him saying that. I thought he declared repeatedly that the other point of view should be given a show in this publication in the United States. I hope I am not unfairly representing him. Certainly his was a different point of view from that expressed by the noble Lord.
Well, of course, that is precisely what is done. I can give many examples of just how we have attended to this. Perhaps I should say that, before we were forced to cut the Estimates for this service—and I agree that the hon. Gentleman opposite protested at that time—we had a regular feature in which we summarised the speeches in all quarters of this House, and it had a very wide publication. I want to say that, despite the need for economy, we still ensure that important Debates in this House are impartially summarised and given a very wide circulation. When the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill took place, we printed, I think in fitting form, keeping a balance of the speeches, a summary of the Debate and used the full resources of the B.I.S. [Interruption.] Surely, the hon. Gentleman does not doubt me?

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: If the right hon. Gentleman asks if I doubt him, I would say I can hardly do that, but, if that be the approach, why not allow B.I.S. to distribute an article by a transport economist which will give the free enterprise case, just the same as was done with the case of the nationalised industry? That is all I am asking, and, if the right hon. Gentleman does that, one half of what we are asking would be granted.

Mr. McNeil: I thought when he made that statement he seemed unaware of what we had done. Perhaps I might offer another example. Last year, we took great care to see that there was an excellent publication reflecting the Debate and resolutions of the Labour Party's Annual Conference—an excellent publication, I thought. We sent out another publication dealing with the Conservative Party Conference, and if——

Mr. McKinlay: There were no resolutions.

Mr. McNeil: If it did not compare well with the other one to which I have


referred, it was not because of its treatment, though it may have been because of its substance. Further, I should not like the third party in this House to think that it was neglected, either. But I do not want to mislead the House. We feel that there is a point where the representation of Government activity must replace the reflection of party activity. That is the point made by the noble Lord the Under-Secretary in the letter from which the noble Lord has quoted. I have the letter here, and he went on to say that, when legislation secured the approval of the House of Commons, we thought we had an obligation to display that point of view.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Certainly, and the other.

Mr. McNeil: I tried to make the point that we dealt with every point of view as long as it was the subject of debate

Mr. Thorneycroft: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me? This is an important matter. As I understand the right hon. Gentleman, what he is now saying is that the moment a Bill has been passed, or it has been decided by the Socialist majority in the House of Commons, to nationalise the transport industry not one breath of criticism can ever be put over by the British Information Services. We think that is grossly unfair, and that is the case which we are asking the right hon. Gentleman to answer.

Mr. McNeil: It would be neither accurate nor fair to suggest that I said there could not be one breath of criticism—I have a copy of the letter here—or that no criticism is permitted. I want, however, to be scrupulously honest and to admit that, that stage having been reached, we do not permit the same extent of publication, because when a Measure has secured the approval of this House and reflects the approval of the majority of the people of this country surely it has become a British activity. It is no longer a differing party point of view. It is no longer an argument between two sides. It is, let me say, a British institution. It is quite true that that institution may subsequently be altered, replaced or destroyed altogether, but while it operates as a British institution, surely it is a primary purpose of the British Information Services to display that institution, to explain how it works

to describe its objects and, as fairly as possible, using yardsticks wherever there are yardsticks, to describe its degree of success or lack of success.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Or lack of success?

Mr. McNeil: Or lack of success.

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is exactly my point.

Mr. McNeil: The noble Lord referred to one article of which he very kindly gave me notice. He tried to make the point that there was bias, that there was concealment of a degree of failure. I shall deal with that in a moment by reading the whole of the quotation. I do not think that is so, but obviously, although it is possible, it would be very confusing if, in attempting to describe how, for example the transport industry was operating in this country, we suddenly introduced an article criticising once more the premises upon which that operation was based. The stage for that has passed. If I might refer to the matter in Parliamentary parlance, it surely would make it impossible for us to proceed with our business at all if, the principle having been decided at the Second Reading, we resurrected the same arguments again at the Committee stage. Perhaps the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) does not think that is a good argument.

Mr. Thorneycroft: It is totalitarian

Mr. McNeil: It is totalitarian! It is totalitarian to submit the question to the hustings of the country, to have a secret ballot upon the subject, to send hon. Members here with a mandate, to discuss the subject again in public in the House, to discuss it three times in the House and to abide by the vote of the House! The hon. Member makes a ridiculous proposition.

Mr. Osborne: Suppose there were another election and another mandate is given, a mandate with a different decision, surely we do not want that different point of view to be explained again in America? Surely it is better to keep both points of view out and to give just a factual statement, as I suggested.

Mr. McNeil: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) for a


proposition which he made earlier. If we are to attempt to produce an anaemic, emasculated, colourless, vague, amorphous type of publication, not only shall we fail to represent what is happening in Britain but we shall fail completely to get any circulation.

Lord John Hope: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that his own definition of British Information Services—colourless, anaemic and amorphous—is different from the definition I read out when he spoke back to the time when they simply gave the facts they were asked for?

Mr. McNeil: I do not go back on my definition at all. Does the noble Lord suggest for a second that there is not a great demand for the publication to which he referred, "Labour and Industry in Britain"? If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham aright, the complaint was that it was not forthcoming in sufficient quantities quickly enough. The complaint was that British Information Services were not able to meet all the demands put upon them. I am not suggesting that British Information Services, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, should sit behind the closed doors of half a dozen offices and reply only when the telephone rings. Newspapers, local authorities, societies promoting lectures and discussions, universities, schools, trade unions, political parties—all make demands upon British Information Services. It is from them the questions come, and the publications are designed to answer some of the questions about British ways of living and British activities.
My submission—and I think it is a perfectly fair one—is that there is a stage, certainly in the view of the United States, when the operations of this Government are British. We cannot expect anyone to describe what has been happening here, for example, in the coal industry, without quoting some figures. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not find them very acceptable. As a matter of fact, the one quotation we were offered relating to coal, and to which the noble Lord took exception—again, I am indebted to him for giving me prior notice of it—was a paraphrase of a paragraph from the report of the National Coal Board. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not like the Coal Board. They may not like its method of presentation. However, they cannot

expect a service writing in the United States, attempting to tell the people of the United States what is happening in the coal industry of Great Britain, to seek out the hon. Member for Monmouth, or to prefer his opinions or figures to the figures given by the National Coal Board. If hon. Gentlemen opposite understand that kind of presentation, it is unlikely that the people of the United States will.
I do not attempt to argue for a second that there will not be slips, that there will not be examples of bias. Of course not I could not possibly do so. In the month of November—I have not the figures for December—B.I.S. published 278 separate titles in the United States. That takes no account of newspaper articles, hand-outs, lectures, films, interviews, oral replies to questions. It refers only to the separate publications of the British Information Services—278 in November. I, therefore, am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite, if they are diligent enough, will be able to find quotations that look like bad examples of bias. The surprising thing is that none was offered. If someone had shown me a quotation which looked like anti-Conservative propaganda I might, as an individual, have been entertained, but as a member of the Government I should have been very disturbed. That would have been gross. It could not have happened by accident. That would have been a piece of propaganda designed for that purpose, and that would have been intolerable.

Lord John Hope: When the right hon. Gentleman asked for a specific example of bias, what more specific example could he want than the quoted statement which I gave him hat the "compensation is fair for nationalised industries." [HON. MEMBERS: "So it is; too fair."] That is amusing, but it is rather unworthy of the Front Bench opposite. Of course, it is a statement of opinion that it is fair. The reason why I gave that example was that it showed bias. At the best, it was a statement of extremely controversial opinion.

Mr. McNeil: I find it difficult to accept that. There is stage 1, where a Debate between hon. Gentlemen opposite and ourselves is reasonably reported by the British Information Services. There is stage 2, where there is an Act, and now the noble Lord complains that compensation is unfair. By what standard?


By a standard perfectly acceptable to him; but is there any yardstick by which this subject can be measured? Market value? That is one standard. What your bank offers? That is another standard. What hon. Gentlemen on this side think should be paid? Many of them think that too much was paid. Surely it is not unreasonable to take this type of judgment—what do the people of Great Britain think? There is no doubt at all that the majority of the people of Great Britain approved this procedure and still do approve it, and, therefore, I think it was reasonable for the British Information Services to say that it was fair.

Lord John Hope: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be surprised to know that, as a matter of fact, the author of that article and quotation, whom I met by coincidence and who was most courteous to me as I hope I was to him, when we discussed this agreed that the particular statement that compensation was fair was perhaps going a little too far?

Mr. McNeil: I should say that his politeness had been overstrained.

Lord John Hope: That is not an answer.

Mr. McNeil: If hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are making complaint, had given me an example of designed anti-Conservative bias, I would have said that was inexcusable and a gross abuse of public money. But that has not been said. No one has come forward to say that.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I did.

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Member did not offer a single example.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Mr. Thorneycroft rose——

Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman did not quote one example of a publication from British Information Services which was of obviously anti-Conservative bias. The noble Lord offered a quotation and drew my attention to it, and he quoted a part of it.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Mr. Thorneycroft rose——

Mr. McNeil: It is because I do not want to bore the House with a speech which is not of major importance that do not give way further. [Interruption.]

I am not suggesting for a second that the British Information Service is not a highly important organisation; what I am suggesting is that the criticism offered is not of major importance.

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is a totalitarian way of carrying on.

Mr. McNeil: The noble Lord did me the kindness of informing me about one of the quotations to which he was going to take exception. I profited by his kindness and courtesy, and I looked up the whole quotation. I am going to give the whole quotation to the House, although I know perfectly well that there will be hon. Friends behind me who will object violently to this, and say that I have no right or power to water down the Government's case. I quote from the October issue of "Labour and Industry in Britain":
British Socialists believe strongly in the moral virtues of public ownership, just as British non-Socialists believe strongly in the virtues of private ownership.
There is not much bias about that.
The interesting thing, however, is that in Britain's present economic position neither side goes all out for its psychological beliefs, both being willing to adjust their beliefs to the realities of the situation. The Labour Party therefore restricts nationalisation to cases where it believes it is necessary for efficiency and increased production"—
the hon. Member for Monmouth had better listen here, because this bit is precisely to make provision for his curious political position—
while its political opponents accept much of the need for central control, and even in some cases of public ownership, and concentrate their criticisms on the method adopted and the exact limits set.
No one could pretend for a second that the writer has not leaned backwards to make it plain that there is an opinionated, if not very expert, Opposition in the House of Comons.
The British Information Services have, I suggest, an overriding obligation to keep going a current picture of what is happening in Great Britain. I should be on dangerous ground were I to suggest that they had an obligation to put the brightest interpretation upon our activities, but it certainly would be highly improper if they "wrote down" what we are doing. They certainly would be doing no service to this country if they suggested that we were faltering in our opinions. that we


were flabby in the handling of our economic affairs, or that people were shy of working. Where there are different sets of figures such as those to which the hon. Member for Louth drew our attention, it is much more important that we should point to the fact that there were—here I am quoting from memory—19,300,000 people at work in this country last year—a higher figure than this country has ever achieved before—rather than that we should point to the fact that 600 miners were dismissed for absenteeism.

Mr. Osborne: Surely it was better to give them both. That is my contention, that the whole picture should be given, neither too bright nor too depressing. Why not give the whole story?

Mr. McNeil: From my experience of journalism I think it a safe guess that there will have been one or two American newspapers which carried the story that 600 miners were dismissed for absenteeism; but I am not so sure that the best of the American newspapers—and their best are exceedingly good—will have carried the figures about our general working population. But even if every one had carried Those figures, we should still try to claim the maximum credit.
It is important that we should retain the confidence which the American people plainly display towards this country just now. It is important that we should strain ourselves to show how active our Government are, to show how much pressure is put behind them from the country, and to show that the majority of their actions have the approval of the majority of the people of this country and are in that sense British happenings: not Labour happenings and not Conservative happenings, but British happenings. I repeat, certainly there are slips. I gladly say that if hon. Gentlemen in front or behind me can show me examples of things which are improper and deliberately biased, I will take them up. The few quotations which hon. Gentlemen opposite have been able to offer and the fact that they have in at least one case to go back more than 12 months to get a good quotation shows that this service really deserves the reputation it has of being highly British and unusually impartial.

Orders of the Day — RAILWAY FARES

9.50 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I want to direct the attention of the House to a purely domestic matter—the question of railway fares which I raised in the House a short time ago when I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport a very extraordinary answer. On that occasion I sought to press three points; first, that railway traffic in this country was falling at an alarming rate; secondly, the cost of fares was not 55 per cent. above the 1948 figure as the Government so loudly proclaimed, but something substantially higher; and, thirdly, that the cheap fare facilities now being offered by the railways were inadequate in view of the number which should be provided.
In reply to those three points the Parliamentary Secretary made many very vigorous assertions—more vigorous, in fact, than accurate. In the first place, he went into a long dissertation upon the improved punctuality, and then he sought to explain how railway fares were increased, which, of course, had nothing to do with the case at all. What we on this side of the House are concerned to have is an assurance that coach and bus fares will not be increased. If tonight the Parliamentary Secretary can give such an assurance to this House and to the country, we shall be very grateful indeed. I await with pleasurable anticipation his announcement that under no circumstances would his right hon. Friend sanction any increase in coach or bus fares in this country.
The remarkable thing was that the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary were incredibly inaccurate, even for a Minister in the present Socialist Administration. It was made worse by the fact that he accused me of being inaccurate, if not misleading. I want to draw attention to some of the alarming inaccuracies in the reply of the hon. Gentleman. When I was making the case about the percentage cost of fares now compared with 1938, I put forward the proposition that the fares were not 55 per cent. higher on an average because the cost of cheap fares today is much more than 55 per cent. greater than in 1938. I further pointed out that the ratio of cheap fares today in relation to the


sum total of fares paid is much lower than it was in 1938.
In pursuit of that object, I gave one or two examples. I said that the cheap fare between Manchester and London was 37s. 6d. today, but the hon. Gentleman said he had a newspaper or some publication which showed that it was 23s. He argued that, therefore, I must be wrong. I did not expect the hon. Gentleman to be so emphatic, but I do expect a Minister, when he comes to this House, at least to quote figures which he can substantiate. I have here a pamphlet published by British Railways, reference No. E.22/R, with details of day excursions between Euston and Manchester and vice versa. It says the fare to Manchester is 37s. 6d., which is precisely what I said. What has the hon. Gentleman done? He is Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, and yet he has confused a half-day excursion fare with a day excursion fare. That does not help his argument, because although the half-day excursion—the few that have been run since the war—costs 23s., the fare before the war was 10s. 6d. In other words, the cost today is well over 100 per cent. above what it was in 1938. The hon. Gentleman made the same gross error about Bournemouth. He said that the Bournemouth fare was 12s. and that that was cheaper than going by coach, but he ignored the fact that before the war the cheap day fare to Bournemouth was in the neighbourhood of 6s. or 6s. 6d. He ought to have had some regard for accuracy.
Even worse was to come, because he said he was surprised—he certainly had some reason to be surprised—on looking at the present fares to find that they were only 10 per cent. higher than in 1928. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman got those figures. Probably it was from the same publication which misled him about the cheap fares. The third class standard fare in 1928 was about lid. a mile, and today it is 2¼d. I am no good at arithmetic, but that seems to be something like 60 per cent. up. The hon. Gentleman was guilty of a gross error in stating that the fares had only risen by 10 per cent. I want to get home to the hon. Gentleman the fact that it is no good for the Government to repeat

that the fares have only gone up by 55 per cent. That is obviously not true, and it cannot be supported by any argument.
I want the Minister to realise that the percentage of cheap fares offered at present is abysmally low. Sir Cyril Hurcomb was good enough to write to me at my request—one has to write to these organisations to get information nowadays—and he advised me that in 1948 approximately 10 per cent. of the passengers travelled on cheap fares and that in 1938 about 50 per cent. of the passengers travelled on cheap fares. If we take into account the fact that there were roughly five times more people travelling on cheap fares in 1938——

Mr. Ernest Davies: Has the hon. Gentleman the figures of the percentage of people who travelled by excursions in the periods which he is comparing, in other words the percentage of people out of the total passenger journeys per year who go by excursions and those who go by ordinary fares? If he takes the amount by which they correspond proportionately to the number of journeys, he will find that the figure is very insignificant.

Mr. Shepherd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The figures which Sir Cyril Hurcomb sent me showed that the percentage of journeys on cheap fares in 1947 represented five per cent. of the total fares. The figures were not complete because the information was not available, but in 1948 they were over double—probably 12 per cent. There is no doubt about these figures. If the hon. Gentleman travels by train he must notice how scarce facilities are in comparison with 1938.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

Mr. Shepherd: Cheap fares are far too few. The falling off in traffic at present is a most serious affair. I want to emphasise to hon. Members how serious it really is. The figures for 1947 were roughly 100 million less passengers than in 1938, and the figure for 1948 looks like being 200 million less than in


1938. That is a serious falling off, and it is even more serious when one realises that in 1947 and 1948 about 50 million journeys were undertaken by the War Department, which swells the figures, abnormally.
When one realises that, in the main, there is no petrol for holiday journeys, that hundreds of thousands of people who previously travelled by road in their own cars, now have to travel by train, one realises how tremendous has been the loss to the railway companies. Take, for instance, the question of holidays with pay. Ought that not to have swollen considerably the amount of traffic on the railways? And in a period of full employment is it not natural to expect that there would have been a considerable expansion of the demands on the railways as there has been for almost every other service in the country? Without having any actual figures to guide me, I should say that the railways today are losing something like 500 million passengers a year compared with what they ought to be getting, if they were getting the same proportion of the traffic as that which was available in 1938.
Therefore, something has to be done to encourage the number of passengers on the railways. It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary or hon. Gentlemen behind him merely saying that we have not enough locomotives. I quote Sir Eustace Missenden, who is an excellent and able man. He said in the "Railway Gazette" of 5th November, 1948:
Today there are sufficient locomotives and the condition of the fleet is better than before the war.
That disposes of the argument that we are short of locomotives.
We have the further argument that we are short of carriages, and that argument, of course, has more weight, but it still remains the fact that carriages are running on the railways day in and day out, day and night, poorly filled, and the first job of the Railway Executive is not to complain that they cannot supply the carriages but to fill the carriages they have. That is what they are not doing at present. This is one of the inevitable defects of State monopoly. In support of that statement I quote the extraordinary reply which the hon. Gentleman gave me when

this subject was last debated. He said that it was the desire of the Railway Executive to reduce fares but that they wanted to do it if they could be reasonably certain of securing additional revenue from reduced fares.
This is the dilemma into which everybody is thrown through a State monopoly. If the railways can be reasonably certain that they will recover more than they will lose in the way of cheap day fares, they will go for it. But in the old days of private enterprise the railway companies had to take a chance, and what I can now see happening here is a determination on the part of the Minister and the railways to play for safety. They are saying to themselves, "We might fill up these empty carriages but we might not, and therefore we shall not take a chance. We shall wait until coach and bus fares are increased and then more people will utilise our service." That is the inevitable dilemma attached to State monopoly, and I do not blame the Minister of Transport because he is part of a system which is a bad one. However, the people of this country have a right to make full use of the railways, and they have a right to take advantage of the services that are available.
While fares are so high, some attempt ought to be made to fill those empty carriages. They can only be filled by making rail travel cheaper than it is at present. People will not pay twice the price for the privilege of travelling on British Railways in preference to using a coach or a 'bus. The sooner the railway Executive and the Ministers concerned realise this, the sooner we shall get these empty carriages filled. The Railway Executive is punishing itself and the community as long as it withholds the cheap fare facilities which would fill them.
I raised this issue because I thought it was of some importance. I thought particularly that it was my duty to raise it in view of misstatements which the hon. Gentleman, perhaps quite unwittingly, made on the last occasion. I agree that then I was in a somewhat boisterous mood myself and that I may have goaded the hon. Gentleman into putting forward a defence stronger, perhaps, than the case merited. To that extent I accept whatever share of responsibility is mine.
Leaving aside all party questions, here we have the case of a national asset which is not being utilised to the full, a case where the railway system of this country is losing, perhaps, 500 million passengers a year which it ought to have. The time has come when we should treat this matter seriously. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us tonight that he will see that a really substantial effort is made by the Railway Executive to go after this missing traffic. I believe that by cheap fares the railway companies got the business in the 1930's in very difficult circumstances, and that the railways can get it again, if they will give the public the full advantage of cheap facilities.

10.7 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Far be it from me to join in this private little fight between the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) and the Parliamentary Secretary, but whilst they are recovering their breath I would like to raise a few points. Under the present system there are certain aspects affecting our constituencies which we cannot bring up through the normal method of Question and Answer. Hon. Members in all quarters appreciate any efforts being made by which we can persuade the powers that be to give us more efficient and cheaper services for the community, especially for big industrial districts and the areas to which the industrial workers have to go for their holidays in the summer months.
The Railway Executive will be receiving from my constituency in the very near future a Petition in these terms:
In view of the financial hardship suffered by many holiday makers in our district through the high level of railway fares to the seaside we pray
note the word "pray"——
you to give the most urgent consideration to the East Anglian Petition for a reduction of long distance travel rates on your Railways"——
I do not know why they say "your railways" instead of "our railways"——
in the summer-time. We especially urge the consideration of cheaper travel for families of three or more.
To constituencies like mine this matter is of paramount importance. If we cannot get for our people cheap travel from

the heavily populated districts to the holiday resorts in the summer time, our major industry will suffer hardship. I am not saying it has already suffered hardship, because I reiterate what I said in the last Debate of this kind, that the railways have done a very good job since the end of the war. We on this side who put forward nationalisation have nothing to be afraid of in view of the progress made since the passage of the Act. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bucklow has given us this commendation from the "Railway Gazette," that we now have sufficient locomotives and that their condition is as good as before the war. [An HON. MEMBER: "Better."] Yes, better. That is a very good testimonial from Sir Eustace Missenden and we are very glad to have it.
I hope that British Railways will take notice of a Petition of this kind, because it is essential that our people who want to get across that huge bulge of East Anglia when going to the Midlands and to the North should be able to do so fairly cheaply and reasonably, especially in these days when poorer families have to count their earnings and outgoings much more carefully, perhaps, than they did when we were in a better economic position.
My second point, of which I hope British Railways will take notice, is that at this interval after the end of the war people may now catch trains like the "Bournemouth Belle" andthe "Brighton Belle" and that seaside resorts of that kind are provided with some very fast trains. Of the premier resorts, Yarmouth is one which has not that kind of "Belle" train, but our people would like to have something of the kind. They jib at the time it takes to get to Yarmouth from London. Years ago there were trains which did the distance more quickly. I suggest that the British Railway Executive might consider for this summer; when we are celebrating the centenary of the book "David Copperfield" in my constituency, the introduction of a good passenger train which would bring people from London to Yarmouth in about two hours. Let us also have nonstop trains from York, Manchester, Leeds and Nottingham terminating at Yarmouth.
I was told in my constituency that the Eastern Region of British Railways published a plan of campaign a few weeks ago. They were going to spend some thousands of pounds on refreshment facilities. In the very famous seaside resort of Yarmouth there are three stations. One, the Beach Station, is served by a single line from the Midlands. That is the only one with any refreshment facilities whatever and even there it is a relic of the old days, a small room run by a private firm. The other two stations, Vauxhall, serving London and the North and South Town, serving London and the South, have no restaurant facilities whatever. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to make a note of this and see that the Executive reconsider their decisions about spending the money. I do not want them to cut off the money they have earmarked for other towns in the region, but I think that priority should be given to Yarmouth, especially as it is a seaside resort and the only facility at the main station from the North is a wheeled coffeestall which is overwhelmed in the summer.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn), I propose to leave the Parliamentary Secretary to settle the disparity in figures with the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) who initiated the Debate. It is fairly obvious that they are not comparing like with like. The main complaint, as I understand it, is against the policy of nationalisation and is to the effect that all the evils arising in the present situation are due to that policy being adopted. The chairman of the Railway Executive has been quoted during the last 10 minutes. If he can, I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to quote any hon. Member opposite who would declare now that the policy of nationalisation ought to be abandoned and that we should go back to private ownership in respect of transport.
I re-read the Debate initiated by the hon. Member for Bucklow on 16th December and I thought that perhaps tonight he would bring forward figures to disprove something which the Parliamen-

tary Secretary said on that occasion. I felt sure that he would make an attempt to discredit what I regard as the bright features of that Debate. For instance, the Parliamentary Secretary forecast that by the end of the year 7,000 special trains would have been run, three million passengers would have derived benefit and an additional £1 million would have been received. That is an indication of the progress made in the last 12 months and there is abundant evidence that progress has continued. That indicates that the zeal of the Railway Executive will bring to the British public a far more efficient service than ever we had before.
What is the magic about the year 1938? I suppose that year was quoted because it was the year before the war. If we are going to make anything like a reasonable comparison, why not compare the year 1948, three years after the war, with the year 1921?

Mr. Shepherd: 1938 was a bad year for the purpose of my case, because the war scare spoiled the holiday traffic. I could have quoted a year just before, which would have been much better.

Mr. Morris: I can hardly believe that the hon. Gentleman is as ingenuous as that, and in view of what he has said about the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think he would have given him that golden opportunity. I should like him to compare the year 1921 and the progress made from 1918 to 1921 and from 1945 to 1948. It would be very much against his case, and it would be ample proof of the enterprise of the Railway Executive during the past 12 months. But I do not wish to infringe upon the time of the Parliamentary Secretary. I submit that the case against the Ministry and the Railway Executive has not been proved. If the complaint was about dear fares, they are higher than we would wish them to be; but we are never going back to the cheap fares of the old days at the expense of the employees in the transport industry. The day has come when transport must be paid for on an economic basis, but I still believe that, with proper organisation and co-ordination, we could have efficient service at a reduced cost, given reasonable time in which to adopt these improvements.

10.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan): I apologise to my hon. Friends who wish to join in this Debate, but time is getting on. This is in the nature of Act 1, Scene 2. The cast is .the same, there are one or two new characters who have entered, but the plot has not altered. The villain of the piece is the nationalised railways and the dashing young knight who comes to the rescue sits opposite in the person of the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd). Broadly speaking we do not seem to have advanced much further.
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has returned to the charge this time because he did not like to lie under the stigma of a 1,500 per cent. error in the loss the railways made in 1947, or the 700 per cent. error in the number of special trains that were run during the last year, and therefore he thought this was the opportunity to recover a little of the lost ground. I am bound to say that I do not propose to remind him of those errors of last time. I shall let the record speak for itself, but I must comment on the errors with which he charged me.
His speech this evening has been much more reasonable than it was last time. Whether that is because I had the opportunity of reading the speech he had just made in one of the technical journals last week before it was made, and with which I acquainted him, I do not know. It is always an advantage to know beforehand the sort of arguments that are to be deployed against one. I have been told that I made a gross error or misled the House. I am not sure which—perhaps both—in connection with cheap fare facilities. Two of the illustrations I gave, Manchester and Bournemouth, are quoted against me. The hon. Gentleman happened, in the course of his comments last time, to read out the excursion fare from Manchester to London. I happened to be perusing one of our London evening papers at the same moment and I saw an advertisement in it——

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman should not have been doing that.

Mr. Callaghan: The speech of the hon. Member had provoked me into doing something like that. I happened to see an advertisement of British Railways and

all I did was to read out of the paper some of the fares printed there, of excursions which were being run on the following Sunday. It was quite clear to the House and the hon. Member has not challenged the validity of the fares I read from the paper. What the hon. Member says is, "Yes, but there are various different types of excursion and we were not talking about the same types." That may well be true. In point of fact what I read was exactly a reproduction of the advertisement that appeared in the newspaper for the special excursion facilities.
Now he charges me with misleading the House by saying that fares were only 10 per cent. above the 1928 level. It is important that we should get this right, because the hon. Gentleman says that I am wrong. In column 1524 of HANSARD I was quoting the main line fares. I said that they are all 55 per cent. up on prewar. I turned up the fares for 1928. This is really most significant. I had no knowledge about this until I looked up the figures. In point of fact, the fares we paid in 1948 were only about 10 per cent. up on the 1928 level. I am referring to the monthly return tickets which I had been talking about. That is accurate. The hon. Gentleman, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Swansea (Mr. P. Morris) said, is not talking about the same thing at all. The normal return fare in 1928 was double the ordinary single fare, whereas today the normal return fare is single fare plus one-third. That is the difference.
Because I knew the point the hon. Gentleman intended to make, I prepared some figures. In 1928 they were three-monthly return fares: today they are monthly.

Mr. Shepherd: Would the hon. Gentleman quote the standard fares? That is what matters.

Mr. Callaghan: I will come to that in a moment. I am quoting the normal fare. That is the comparison I made as reported in column 1524. The fare for the journey between London and Edinburgh (Waverley) was 99s. in 1928. That is the three-monthly return fare. The monthly return fare today is 107s. 6d. The fare from London to Norwich (Thorpe) was 29s. in 1928; it is 31s. 9d. today. From London to Brighton the fare was 12s. 10d. in 1928; it is 14s. 3d. today. From London to Birmingham the fare


was 27s. 10d. in 1928; it is 30s. 6d. today. I have a whole list here. All the fares are roughly 10 per cent. higher today on the comparison that I was making on the previous occasion than they were in 1928.
The hon. Gentleman says, "But what about the standard fare, the ordinary fare?" Of course, he is quite right. There is indeed a very great difference. The point here which it is important should be understood is that there is a very small percentage indeed of people who travel by what the hon. Gentleman calls the ordinary fare. In October, 1948, which is a specimen month, 9.32 per cent. of passengers who travelled, exclusive of season ticket holders who ought to be excluded for this purpose, paid the standard fare. If season tickets were included it would make the percentage lower. Of the total, 31·13 per cent. paid the monthly return fare. That is, of course, the ticket that people normally get. It must be within the experience of all of us that people normally buy that ticket if they cannot get an excursion ticket. Nine per cent. of passengers who travelled, exclusive of season ticket holders, took the ordinary fare.

Mr. John R. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the remuneration of travel agents paid by the railways is no less than five per cent.? Would he justify that despite the increase in rates?

Mr. Callaghan: I prefer not to be led down that track. I do not want to take on too many people at one time. I should like to stick to this point on which I have been challenged. What the Government have consistently said, and what was said in the Minister's statement on 5th August, 1947, is that all railway charges will be raised to 55 per cent. above pre-war with effect 1st October next. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman has now twice tried to challenge and twice failed to substantiate. The comparison on which this is based—these words—is exactly the same as the wording used in a similar announcement during the days of the Coalition Government during the war, and the basis is precisely the same. We were quite right when we took the view that all railway charges will be raised to 55 per cent. above pre-war with effect from the 1st October, 1947, in the conventional terms in which that is used.
I want to deal briefly with one or two of the longer term considerations in the short time that remains, but I ought to say a word or two about cheap fare facilities. The Railway Executive have introduced large numbers of cheap fare facilities during the last 12 months. They did not have a straight run before them, because there were restrictions on coal and the railways were kept short of coal. It was not until last Spring that they could really start to introduce these facilities with any degree of assurance that they would not be interrupted. The point I want to make here is that, as these cheap fare facilities and excursions which have been very widely introduced become better known, and as we get a full year's working, I am confident that the proportion of passengers taking advantage of them will be very much higher.
Perhaps I might quote the figures. The proportion of passengers in 1947 who used cheap fare facilities was 5 per cent. of the total passenger traffic. In the first quarter of last year, it was 5.2 per cent., which was about the time of the release of the railways, in the second quarter it went up to 8.6 per cent. and in the third quarter to 17.8 per cent. For the year as a whole, as the hon. Gentleman said, it will be near enough the 10 per per cent., perhaps a little more, but it is an ascending curve and it is the commercial expectation of the Railway Executive that this percentage of passengers will rise more greatly as the facilities become better known and as more people understand that they exist and our broadcast advertisements become more widely understood. I do not believe they will ever return to the 50 per cent. of before the war, for technical reasons concerned with the abolition of the week-end ticket and its replacement by the monthly return. I think it is likely that they will rise to something higher than the figure at which they have stood up to the moment.
The hon. Gentleman asked me for an assurance that bus and coach fares will not be increased. The procedure has been quite clearly enunciated before. It is the duty of the British Transport Commission, laid upon it by Act of Parliament, to review the millions of fares and rates that are charged at the present time and to take them before the Transport Tribunal where they may be fully argued


out. The case for the opposition will be presented if the charges are rather unpalatable, and there will be the opportunity of arguing the case before the tribunal. There is no suggestion that anybody is going to depart from that procedure, which is laid down by the Act; it will be followed and the full case will be presented. On a previous occasion, it took seven years to argue it out, but I hope it will not take so long now.
I shall conclude by reading some excellent extracts from a lecture given recently by Mr. Roland Bird, deputy editor of "The Economist," because they are very wise:
The fruits of co-ordination and unification are therefore bound to mature slowly. It would be absurd to suppose that the Commission

could devise charges schemes within two years of the passing of the Act, or perhaps within twice that period, which would begin to reflect the general directions in which costs are being or promised to be reduced.
I leave out a few sentences, and again quote:
A system of charges for transport as a whole, if it is to make economic sense, must await the results of the long-term attack upon costs.
There is another paragraph which I regret I cannot quote.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'Clock, and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half-past Ten o'Clock.